Israeli human shields
Surfer
See Palestinian loss of land 1946 - 1999
http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
Jews in 1946.
Otherwise by staying on stolen land, they are volunteering to be human
shields.
DoD
> Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
>
> See Palestinian loss of land 1946 - 1999http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
> I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> Jews in 1946.
Who cares what you think?
HHW
>
>
> I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> Jews in 1946.
>
> Otherwise by staying on stolen land, they are volunteering to be human
> shields.
That would result in the Jews "owning" by purchase 6% of Mandatory
Palestine. Even then they didn't have national sovereignty over any
mandate lands. They were Europeans after all. Palestine is in Asia.
HHW
> On Jan 7, 3:48 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
>
> > See Palestinian loss of land 1946 - 1999http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
>
>
> > I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> > Jews in 1946.
>
> Who cares what you think?
A little frustrated are you David? Having trouble keeping your temper?
Yes, you are. Do you know why? It's because you fully know you are not
competent to craft an argument in support of your beloved Zionists on
your own. Except for filth you're speechless.
DoD
> On Jan 7, 4:14 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:48 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
>
> > > See Palestinian loss of land 1946 - 1999http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
>
> >http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/com...
>
> > > I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> > > Jews in 1946.
>
> > Who cares what you think?
>
> A little frustrated are you David?
Only with this weirdo that calls itself _god_.... The rest of you
louses don't bother me. Why should trashy people bother me?
TheZ
years. The Arabs showed up as settlers when King Abdullah 1st kicked them
out of their homeland Jordan in 1921. He put 1.5 million of them in refugee
camps in the West Bank. No food, no water, no homes and no toilets, just
squalored refugee camps.
He blithely said to them "try to return and we will kill you".
So Jews 5761 years - Palestinians 88 years in the West Bank-2 years in Gaza
that Israel allowed them.
So now where is your argument moron?
I'll tell you, down the toilet with the rest of your bullshit.
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d33658e-4fa8-4636...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
drahcir
issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
> Poor HHW is trying to figure some way out of the doodoo he stepped in.
> It's so easy, H. I am going to be magnanimous, although you don't
> deserve it, and accept your apology for posting ridiculous
> accusations, including plagiarism, without an iota of proof. I realize
> you did this in a drunken, frustrated rage, and will forgive you just
> this once. As I have said before:
> H, I am trying to give you a graceful way out of your dilemma,
> although you don't deserve it. Be a mensch for once in your life and
> admit that you were simply in a drunken rage and therefore not really
> responsible for the accusations you made in the below cited thread,
> and all will be forgiven. I think that's more than fair, don't you?
> **************
> After hammering away at HHW, proving him a silly, childish liar on
> many occasions, he finally snapped and apparently started
> hallucinating, making wild accusations about me including plagiarism,
> in the thread containing the below cited post. Now that I demand
> proof, he tries to hide. You've been outed, H - not only are you a
> proven liar, but you're also so weak a character that you
> indulge in fantasy to try to escape when the real world gets
> too tough. Do your masturbating
> somewhere else - it grosses normal people out.
> > On Jan 3, 2:49 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think if anyone ever needed any proof that HHW is either insane or
> > > always drunk, here it is:
> > >http://tinyurl.com/9lzyhe
> > > You need to PROVE your accusation of plagiarism, H, WITH CITES. I'm
> > > waiting....
HHW
I must bother you. You haved clipped the following:
...... Having trouble keeping your temper?
HHW
> HHW, the drunk, the proven liar, the obvious coward hopes that the
> issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
> hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
"Accusations made by a well-established society about how a people it
is oppressing is breaking rules to attain its rights do not have much
credence."
(Shlomo Ben-Ami, 2000)
"We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them, ... we'll insert a strip of
Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip
of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years'
time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will
be able to tear it apart."
(Ariel (Arik) Sharon, 1973)
Clip foul reduncancies.
DoD
> On Jan 7, 4:44 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 4:33 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 4:14 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 3:48 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
>
> > > > > See Palestinian loss of land 1946 - 1999http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
>
> > > >http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/com...
>
> > > > > I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> > > > > Jews in 1946.
>
> > > > Who cares what you think?
>
> > > A little frustrated are you David?
>
> > Only with this weirdo that calls itself _god_.... The rest of you
> > louses don't bother me. Why should trashy people bother me?
>
> I must bother you. You haved clipped the following:
Again... you are trash... Why should trash bother me? I get annoyed
when
someone like _god_ shows up and posts dozens upone dozens of off topic
crime
stories... You on the other hand are just a plain anti-semitic low-
life. Why should
you bother me? You are a joke.
$Discount$
$Discount$
coaste...@yahoo.com says...
> On Jan 7, 4:14=A0pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 3:48=A0pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
> >
> /map/landmap1.jpg
> >
> > http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/com...
> >
> > > I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> > > Jews in 1946.
> >
> > Who cares what you think?
>
> A little frustrated are you David? Having trouble keeping your temper?
> Yes, you are. Do you know why? It's because you fully know you are not
> competent to craft an argument in support of your beloved Zionists on
> your own. Except for filth you're speechless.
>
$Discount$
coaste...@yahoo.com says...
> On Jan 7, 4:44=A0pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 4:33=A0pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 7, 4:14=A0pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 7, 3:48=A0pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
> >
> .org/map/landmap1.jpg
> >
> > > >http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/com.=
> ..
> >
> > > > > I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned b=
> y
> > > > > Jews in 1946.
> >
> > > > Who cares what you think?
> >
> > > A little frustrated are you David?
> >
> > Only with this weirdo that calls itself _god_.... The rest of you
> > louses don't bother me. Why should trashy people bother me?
>
> I must bother you. You haved clipped the following:
>
> ...... Having trouble keeping your temper?
> Yes, you are. Do you know why? It's because you fully know you are
> not
> competent to craft an argument in support of your beloved Zionists on
> your own. Except for filth you're speechless.
>
>
>
>
$Discount$
drahcir
> On Jan 7, 6:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > HHW, the drunk, the proven liar, the obvious coward hopes that the
> > issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
> > hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
>
The "foul redundancies" HHW is referring to is my repeated request for
him to retract the lies he has been spewing. He thinks "clipping" them
will make them go away. HHW is not only a lowly liar, he is a coward
who will try to "wait it out" rather than step forward and admit his
lies. I can wait as long as you can, H.
drahcir
then flee from his responsibility of backing them up or retracting
them. Here is just the latest example:
dsharavi
> I must bother you. You haved clipped the following:
One might say something similar to you, Hunter, regarding the
following facts presented in opposition to your unfounded comments:
Subject: Re: John Mearsheimer - Invoking the Holocaust to Defend the
Occupation
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:55:48 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/1b3e1d9ac652df4a
>>What HHW clipped from Jack's Dec 13, 8:36 pm post -- in
>>response to HHW's nonsensical comment blither about Israel's
>>“insistence on unattainable demands so as to defeat calls for
>>compromise” -- was:
>>>>>>Israel HAS compromised again and again and again
>>>>>>since before the state was founded. But the Arab
>>>>>>Muslims feel they will win in the long run,
>>>>>>because of numbers or whatever, so why should
>>>>>>they compromise? As I've said countless times,
>>>>>>until 56 Muslim states fully recognize ISrael's
>>>>>>RIGHT to exist, and are prepared to accept reasonable
>>>>>>proposals, there can be no permanent peace. The
>>>>>>Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS
>>>>>>that Israel must accept. ISrael they say, MUST go
>>>>>>back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines).
>>>>>>Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again. Israel
>>>>>>must take in the so-called "refugees." EVen then,
>>>>>>they say nothing about Israel's RIGHT to exist,
>>>>>>but only speak about "normalizing" relations,
>>>>>>whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. You'd
>>>>>>think THEY won all the wars and Israel had to
>>>>>>accept their terms on its knees like Japan and
>>>>>>Germany after being bombed out and defeated.
>>>>>>With me, no way Jose.
>>That's what Jack posted, which HHW, being unable to face facts,
>>clipped.
>>>This is emotional blather.
>>Jack's blather contains salient facts which HHW, with his usual
>>allergy to facts, can't face. Among those facts are:
>>1) Israel HAS compromised again and again
On Dec 25, 10:31 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Only under pressure from the U.S. when it was forced to take our
>interests into account.
You neglect to consider pressure from the oil corporations, and the
pressure exerted on them from the Arab OPEC states, as well as the
Arab Lobby.
>And don't forget that the Israeli State was
>created by mass terror.
One can hardly “forget” what never happened. The PalArabs initiated
and perpetrated the “mass terror” attendant upon the birth of Israel.
Had they devoted their energies to creating the second Arab state in
Palestine, that state would now be as old as Israel. They chose
instead to “finish Hitler's work.” Needless to say, they chose
poorly.
>>2) Arab Muslims do feel they will win in the long run, because of
>>numbers [i.e., the
>>“demographic bomb” Terrorfat kept nattering about, while his
>>government encouraged Pallie females to have as many kids as they
>>could]
>So do I and most Israelis fear that result.
You miss Jack's point. And your assumption that you can speak to what
“most Israelis fear” is too grotesquely arrogant for comment.
Personally, I find any authoritative body encouraging humans to breed
reprehensible.
>You conflate two aspects of Zionism's purely ideological "problem,"
The statement is Jack's, don't but presume you can lecture either of
us on your imaginary “Zionist ideology”; without sounding like an
idiot.
[more patented blather snipped]
>>3) The Arabs insist on dealing with Israel with DIKTATS that Israel
>>must accept. Among those diktats are:
>> a) Israel MUST go back to the "67 borders" (1949 Armistice lines)
>> b) Israel must REDIVIDE Jerusalem yet again
>> c) Israel must take in the so-called "refugees"
>"a" makes eminent sense
It is impossible to return to the so-called “67 borders”. There were
no borders in 1967. As Jack noted, those were the armistice lines of
1949. Armistice lines are not borders. Armistice lines are merely
where agreements concluded that fighting must stop. Borders were
established when Israel concluded peace treaties with two of the
former belligerents of that war.
>as it's in the American interest that the
>matter be settled. And the American interest is, of course,
>preeminent. You're an American and surely should understand that.
I understand that you understand very little.
>"b" Horrors, Israel must redivide Jerusalem!? AMERICA can't pay THAT
>price!
What price? It's in American interests that Jerusalem remain under
Israeli sovereignty.
>No, surely not; tens of thousands more non-Jewish Americans
>should die
“MORE non-Jewish Americans die”? When – precisely -- have “tens of
thousands of non-Jewish Americans” died for Israel?
>to prevent THAT from happening to say nothing of enduring
>another depression. We Americans couldn't have Jerusalem become an
>international city either.
We Americans don't intend that it should. Read CAREFULLY:
105th CONGRESS - 1st Session - H. CON. RES. 60
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Whereas for 3,000 years Jerusalem has been the focal point
of Jewish
religious devotion;
Whereas Jerusalem today is also considered a holy city by
members of
the Christian and Muslim faiths;
Whereas there has been a continuous Jewish presence in
Jerusalem for
three millennia and a Jewish majority in the city since the 1840's;
Whereas the once thriving Jewish majority of the historic
Old City of
Jerusalem was driven out by force during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War;
Whereas from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city and
Israeli
citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were
denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan;
Whereas in 1967 Jerusalem was reunited by Israel during
the conflict
known as the Six Day War;
Whereas since 1967 Jerusalem has been a united city, and
persons of
all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites
within the city;
Whereas this year marks the 30th year that Jerusalem has
been
administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have
been respected and protected;
Whereas in 1990 the United States Senate and House of
Representatives
overwhelmingly adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 and House
Concurrent Resolution 290 declaring that Jerusalem, the capital of
Israel, 'must remain an undivided city' and calling on Israel and the
Palestinians to undertake negotiations to resolve their differences;
Whereas Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel later cited
Senate
Concurrent Resolution 106 as having 'helped our neighbors reach the
negotiating table' to produce the historic Declaration of Principles
on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed in Washington, D.C. on
September 13, 1993; and
Whereas the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-45), which
became law on November 8, 1995, states as a matter of United States
policy that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That
the Congress--
(1) Congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the
people of Israel
on the 30th anniversary of the reunification of that historic city;
(2) Strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an
undivided city in
which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as
they have been by Israel during the past 30 years;
(3) Calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to
affirm
publicly as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem must
remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel; and
(4) Urges United States officials to refrain from any
actions that
contradict this policy.
Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1997; roll call
#176
(406-17)
>"c" But that's not an issue. Everyone agrees the plan is to have the
>American middle class taxpayer finance the compensation of Palestinian
>refugees as an alternative to honoring the right of return.
The so-called “refugees” are an artificially-maintained issue. Where
are the millions of refugees from the 1947 division of India? The
American middle class taxpayer, and the British taxpayer, have been
financing Fakestinian freeloaders and their numerous descendants for
sixty years, along with the 30,000 bureaucrats of UNRWA. It's high
time to put a stop to it, and apply these wasted funds to health care
for needy American citizens. Anyway, the majority of the 600,000-odd
“refugees” from 1948 are no longer kicking, and like hell I'll finance
their descendants.
>It is
>specious to keep raising the issue until it is at least tested in the
>first honest negotiations on the West Bank ever indulged by the
>israelis. You know, the ones done under an American ultimatum.
It's next to impossible to engage in “honest negotiations” over
Jordan's former “West Bank” when the Fakestinians have proven
themselves, time and again, incapable of honest negotiations, or of
abiding by any agreement they make.
>>4) In exchange for the above, the Arabs say nothing about Israel's
>>RIGHT to exist, but only speak about "normalizing" relations.
>They will never give up questioning Israel's right to exist until
>Jewish Zionists give up denying Palestine's right to exist.
If they continue to deny the obvious, it's time we left them all to
slug it out between themselves. And when, precisely, did these “Jewish
Zionists”, whoever they may be, deny some alleged “right” of
“Palestine” to exist?
>When they
>are offered bilaterally and in good faith these matters will be
>tested.
These matters have indeed been tested, with the results as noted
above: the Fakestinians have repeatedly shown themselves as incapable
of good faith as they are of honest negotiations or of abiding by any
agreement they make.
>In the meantime the Israeli Zionists just hate ANY American
>inclination to talk with the Palestinians. That's not the behavior of
>people who want to negotiate.
“Israeli Zionists”, “Jewish Zionists”, show a little honesty yourself;
just call them The Jooz. And do make an effort to abandon your
grotesquely arrogant presumption that you can speak to what millions
“most fear” or “just hate.” It's the anti-American Fakestinians who
are always bitching about American involvement anyway; it's why their
so-called “government” spends $$$millions on PR and propaganda in
perpetuating its standard lies, which would be better off spent to
benefit the people it claims to represent. All it's done for them
lately is to impose Sharia law and its punishments, such as flogging,
amputations, and crucifixions.
>>5) The Arabs behave as if THEY won all the wars they started and
>>Israel must accept their terms on its knees like Japan and Germany
>>after being bombed out and defeated.
>The most important war, the original war against the Palestinian
>people, was begun by the Jews in 1947. The Arab invasion of Palestine
>was a counter-attack. This is beyond question simply as a matter of
>chronology.
Your chronology is false. The facts are that Arab attacks from
December 1947 through February 1948 left 384 Jews dead and 725
wounded. In March 1948 alone, Arabs killed 271 Jews, a few more than
the 257 Arabs killed by Brits and Jews.
Now pay attention to more facts – if you can cope with them:
On December 17 [1947], Bevin warned Marshall that the Jews would “get
their throats cut.” The foreign secretary's appraisal was entirely
shared by British military leaders. In March 1948, with hostilities
now begun, Field Marshal Montgomery offered his opinion that “the Jews
had bought it” -- that they were unable to protect their lines of
communication [from Arab assaults]. The reports of British officers in
Jerusalem, Amman, and Cairo sustained this view. The following month
General Sir Gordon Macmillan, commander of the British forces in
Palestine, stated flatly that the Arabs armies “would have no
difficulty in taking over the whole country.”
[p 297]
The initial Arab response to the Partition Resolution was to carry out
their oft-repeated threat of violence. It set the pattern for the
months and years ahead. In Aleppo, Syria, three hundred Jewish homes
and eleven synagogues were burned to the ground, and half the city's
four thousand Jews fled elsewhere. At Aden, seventy-six Jews were
killed. In Palestine itself the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a
three-day general strike from December 2 to December 4, 1947. Violence
began immediately with attacks on the Jewish quarters in Jerusalem,
Haifa, and Jaffa. Soon after, the Higher Committee began recruiting
volunteers throughout Palestine Arab towns and villages. Most of the
ensuing “militias” were organized around the nucleus of the Futuwwa
and Najjada societies. Their opening tactics were essentially hit-and-
run assaults on isolated Jewish settlements and transportation, and
the pillage and destruction of Jewish property. The attacks were
launched entirely by the Palestine Arabs, although part of the funds
and military equipment came from neighboring Arab countries.
[p 298]
During the September 16, 1947 meeting at Sofar, Lebanon (p. 285), the
Arab League Political Committee appealed for economic reprisals
against Britain and the United States, and for money and weapons for
the Palestine Arabs. Three weeks later the group met again in the
Lebanese town of Alay, this time to organize a military committee of
Arab states...[A] plan was eventually adopted to supply the League's
military committee with 10,000 rifles and other weapons, to arrange
for the passage for 3,000 Arab volunteers through Syria into
Palestine, and to supply L1 million toward the cost of the “defense of
Palestine.” These were the circumstances in which the “Arab Liberation
Army” was formed.
[p 299]
By early spring 1948 the guerrillas had divided Palestine into fronts.
The northern sector of the country, with 7,000 men, remained under the
personal command of Qawukji and of the Syrian Adib al-Shishhakli. The
central sector was held by 5,000 men, the largest number of them under
the Higher Committee's irregulars under the command of Abd al-Qadr al-
Husseini, a nephew of the Mufti. The southern “front,” comprising the
entire Negev, was given over to a fluctuating number of about 2,000
Moslem Brotherhood volunteers from Egypt...With superiority in
numbers, Arab operations became more extensive by the winter and early
spring of 1948. Assaults were launched against Jewish quarters in the
cities, particularly in Jerusalem. There were concentrated attacks
against the kibbutzim in the Hebron hills. Far from interfering with
these Arab military activities, the British turned over their police
fortresses to the guerrillas...In Jerusalem the situation of the Jews
was particularly grave, as relief columns moving along the highway
from the lowlands were systematically decimated by ambushes in the
hills...and the Jewish population of Jerusalem faced the imminent
likelihood of being starved or overrun.
[pp 299-300]
HM Sachar, A History of Israel
>>These are facts which HHW, knowing as little as he does about the
>>history of the region, and refusing to learn anything about it, can't
>>and won't face.
>As I suggested the other evening you wouldn't know a fact if it bit
>you in the arse.
You must have been getting the worst of it in a fact-based exchange;
therefore you fell back on your usual habit of childish, gratuitious –
and, in this case, erroneous -- invective. Even in that respect, you
can't come up with anything on your own, and must, perforce, parrot
others – in this case, me.
>>>They're ready to settle.
>>Twaddle. The only settlement the Palestine Arabs will accept is a
>>Judenrein Israel.
>Pure, dishonest hasbara.
It's rather amusing how the ignorant tend to pick up on an essentially
meaningless word, then toss it around as if it were of great import.
In fact, the only settlement the Arabs will accept is a Judenrein
Israel.
>You want the American people to *believe that
>without testing it* with serious negotiations insisted on by our
>government.
Even for you, that's a remarkably stupid assumption, on several
accounts. Overall, you display yet again your grotesquely arrogant
ignorance in your presumption to speak for what you assume, on no
grounds whatsoever, that one wants “the American people to believe.”
My personal preference is that the government stop insisting on
negotiations and leave the parties to slug it out between them, at the
same time cutting off all foreign aid to the Middle East and applying
those moneys where they would be better spent – on Humanitarian Aid to
needy Americans.
>Only if Americans continue to be hoodwinked will Israel be
>able to stay continuously on the offensive in the ethnic cleansing of
>Palestine without pressure and without losing her dole.
Let's see:
The PalArab “refugee” population has mushroomed from an estimated
600,000 (427,000 by the UN's 1948 estimation) to an alleged 5-8
millions today. This leads to one of two conclusions:
1) Israelis are the world's most ineffective “ethnic cleansers”, or
2) the repetitious blither about “ethnic cleansing” is repetitious
blither.
In fact, the Jordanians were far more effective “ethnic cleansers”; in
a few weeks, they massacred some 20,000 PalArabs, and drove thousands
more from their country. Ditto for the Kuwaitis, who “ethnically
cleansed” almost half a million PalArabs from their country.
>Zionist policy
>adds up to greed for the last scrap of Palestine and the denial of a
>viable Palestinian state.
“Zionist policy” is ....what, exactly? Two “viable Palestinian states”
currently exist: Jordan and Israel. As for “greed for the last scrap
of Palestine”, the freeloading Fakestinians have for decades
consistently demonstrated that “greed for the last scrap of
Palestine”--including Jordan--is theirs.
>This is blatantly contrary to the American
>interest yet the lobby has such a strangle hold on our Congress that
>we are unable to correct our policy.
What a cuddly blanket that imaginary “lobby” is, and how curious that
modern believers in this essentially medieval dogma fail to note the
greater “stranglehold on our Congress” demonstrated by multinational
oil corporations, the Arab Lobby, and other more powerful lobbies. Had
that Jewish/Zionist/Israeli “lobby” actually possessed the “strangle
hold” which devout believers accord it, the Fakestinian issue would
have been long gone from the political scene. The Liquor Lobby is
probably a more powerful than the Jewish Lobby.
>>>>On Dec 15, 4:32 am,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>Give a break. Israel has 80 percent of Palestine and you whine like
>>>>>this?
>>Israel never had 80 percent of Palestine. Currently, it's the Arabs
>>who possess something like 80 percent of Palestine, having been gifted
>>in 1923 with eastern Palestine, from which Jewish settlement was
>>barred.
>You know what Palestine means today, Deborah. This is a red herring.
This is your standard sidedodging, Hunter, with a bit of your
backpeddling thrown in. The fact remains that the bulk of Palestine
became the emirate of Transjordan – from which Jews were excluded – in
1923. Transjordan seized and annexed the so-called “West Bank” in
1948, at the same time Egypt seized the Gaza Strip. The state of
Israel never had, and does not now have, “80 percent of Palestine”.
>And in any event diaspora Jews had no claim to these additional lands.
>None whatever. You can't generate an irredentist claim from thin air
>and expect it to be taken seriously.
You can't continue to sidedodge, backpeddle, bare your essential
ignorance of the subjects you attempt to address, and expect anyone to
take you seriously, do you? Apparently, you do.
>>In 1948, Arabs seized the chunks of western Palestine which
>>had been allocated to the second Arab state in Palestine by UNGAR 181
>>-- which the Arabs rejected, as they had rejected every other form of
>>settlement.
>Therefore, it belongs to European Jews?
Another irrelevant and tangential sidedodge. The facts are as stated.
The facts show that the Jews of western Palestine (Jews were barred
from eastern Palestine) were willing to compromise with the Arabs in
the formation of a second Arab state in Palestine. The Arabs rejected
it, for the reason you falsely and erroneously attribute to Jews, and
that is Arab “greed for the last scrap of Palestine and the denial of
a viable [Jewish] Palestinian state.” The Arabs therefore launched a
war to prevent creation of those second and third states in Palestine.
They lost. Get over it.
>>>>They had to dig in their heels at some point.<
>>Arabs started throwing violent temper tantrums in 1920.
>Oh, you now demonize them as children?
“Demonize them as children” -- that's rich. OK, so the Palestine Arabs
didn't start throwing violent temper tantrums beginning in 1920. They
instigated and incited violent assaults on and massacres of innocent
civilians – their demonstrably preferred targets -- beginning in 1920,
and continuing with escalating violence through 1921, 1929, 1936,
1937, 1938, 1939 – they knocked off a while to aid and abet the Nazis
in WWII – 1947, 1948, and on up to the present, their rationale being
their “greed for the last scrap of Palestine and the denial of a
viable [Jewish] Palestinian state.”
Happy now?
>>They continued
>>pitching fits which escalated in violence over the years, once they
>>learned the lesson which the British taught them -- namely, that
>>violence against Jews makes for good diplomacy.
>Bullshit.
Fact.
>Violence against Arabs made for good, traditional Zionism.
Now that's bullshit. Nothing in any of the multiple forms of Zionism
ever advocated violence against Arabs; in fact, all indications are to
the contrary. It's otherwise with the Arabs; their violence against,
and massacres of, Palestinian Jews had a long history well before the
evolution of political Zionism. And, yes, the British caving in to
every outbreak of Palestine Arab terrorism taught the Palestine Arabs
that their terrorism was effective diplomacy—a lesson they've followed
to this day. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the subjects
you attempt, and fail, to address, – along with your inability to face
facts, your childish surliness when confronted with them, and your
woeful penchant for concocting stupid lies instead.
>>>>YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's useless
>>>>talking to you. Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
>>>>1937 for starters?
>>Please don't give HHW any more than his antedeluvian brain can
>>handle.
>Your dominant organ is the spleen, Deborah.
Yet again you display your inability to face facts, and your childish
surliness when confronted with those which refute your received dogma.
Jack was quite correct: you know nothing of the history of the region,
as evidenced, in part, by your stupid declaration that “Actual Zionist
intentions are proved by the Jewish "acceptance" of the UN Plan of
1939 which represented abandonment of the idea of transfer.”
>>What HHW snipped from Jack's reply:
>>“Why don't you start with the Royal Peel Commission of
>>1937 for starters? At that time, the ARabs were offered to
>>get 80% of "Palestine" and rejected it.”
>>Peel proposed the division of western Palestine and Transjordan into
>>three regions: a Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a
>>much larger Arab state in the rest of western Palestine and
>>Transjordan, and a permanently mandated British territory including
>>the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, with British
>>bases in Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. The Peel Report was taken
>>seriously enough by the Arabs for them to almost immediately launch
>>another campaign of violence against it – as well as by the Axis, for
>>them to begin supporting the Palestine Arabs against the British.
>But Deborah. You don't respond to my argument. You clip it instead.
You made no “argument”. You made a series of false statements
regarding the 1937 Royal Commission – following your clip of Jack's
statement as to what Peel offered the Arabs -- which served only to
underscore the validity of Jack's observation that you “know nothing
about the history of the region.” Moreover, I did not, as you falsely
claim, “clip” your so-called “argument”. It follows below, with
corrections to your errors.
>>>You don't have to talk to me but I'm a provocative interlocutor.
>>>"Dangerous" you once said.
>>HHW's assertion that Jack called him “dangerous” sounds like H's oft-
>>repeated lie that I said “Don't you just love Benny Morris?”, and
>>another of his lies that I made a racist remark against Al Sharpton.
>>“Provocative interlocutor” is obviously Watsonese for “fertilizer
>All true, Deborah. Here you know the truth and it still bites you in
>the ass.
The truth, O purveyor of attenuated fertilizer, is that I never made
either statement. It was YOU made up both statements and falsely
attributed them to me. In short, you lied. And you still lie.
>>conveyor”.
>>>The Peel Plan, a recommendation to the British government, was never
>>>British policy.
>>Contrary to HHW's imaginings, the British government behaved as if the
>>Peel Commission's Report was to become policy.
>Really now. Can you prove that?
Already have, as you might have noted had you not indulged in your
usual flight from facts.
Note, also, that your foregoing pronouncements on Peel – which your
brief (and erroneous) description shows your ignorance of – constitute
what you grandiosely refer to as your “argument”, which you claim I
cut, and which I did not.
>Nothing like it appears in the
>historical sketches I've read on this subject.
By your own admission, you haven't read much on the subject. Rather
than a few “historical sketches”, you might try reading some actual
histories on the subject, unless you think the shock of confronting
facts might prove too much for you. Try the Report itself, for
starters.
>>Certainly, the Arabs,
>>the Jews -- and the Axis powers -- considered it as such.
>Even after it was rejected formally by the British government as
>unworkable and then replaced with a new and profoundly different
>analysis two years later. You make up this merde as you go along.
Au contraire, it's you who have shown yourself the chief purveyor of
merde on these NGs, and your backpeddling pronouncement above only
underscores this. As previously stated, the Peel Commission's plan was
never “officially” abandoned or “rejected” -- formally or otherwise.
-- It was “reworked”. The impetus for that reworking of the Peel Plan
was due to several developments. One was the renewal of PalArab
violence on a far vaster scale than previously – , this time aided and
abetted by Germany. Others were the far more important complex of
events then transpiring in Europe. May one assume you've read a few
“historical sketches” on Europe in the late 1930s?
>> It was taken
>>seriously by the Jews, and very seriously by Arabs.
>Nonsense. The Jews had no intention whatever of abiding by the Peel
>plan.
Over and again, you display your arrogant presumption, not only in
areas in which you are demonstrably ignorant, but in presuming to
speak for the “intentions” of people long gone. In fact, Ben-Gurion,
as head of the Jewish Agency, had every intention of abiding by Peel.
>They are to be judged by their behavior and their history. And
>by history I mean up to the present time, not just the Nakba.
Wrong again, and grossly so. One need not explain the obvious. But if
one is going to judge one people, one should certainly judge the other
“by their behavior and their history up to the present time”, and that
is the Arabs. What was THEIR intent regarding Peel? It was that of
their closest ally, as expressed by Foreign Minister Von Neurath's
instructions to German legations in the Middle East issued in July
1937:
“The formation of a Jewish state or a Jewish-led political structure
under a British Mandate is not in Germany's interest, since a
Palestinian state would not absorb world Jewry, but would create an
additional position of power under international law for international
Jewry, somewhat like the Vatican for Catholicism or Moscow for the
Comintern. Germany therefore has an interest in strengthening the Arab
world as a counterweight against such possible increase in power for
world Jewry.”
Rather like your beloved Jewish Lobby, wouldn't you say, old man?
>>In response to Peel. the Iraqi prime minister, Sayid Hikmat Suleiman,
>>warned Abdallah of Transjordan that “Any person venturing to act as
>>the head of such a [partitioned] state would be regarded as an outcast
>>throughout the Arab world and would induce the wrath of Moslems all
>>over the East.”
>Allies often have difficulties in co-ordination. In any event this is
>not 1937.
Suleiman's warning was transmitted to Abdallah in September 1937. Your
“argument” -- which you claimed I snipped, though I did not – concerns
the Peel Plan of 1937, therefore your comment that “this is not 1937”
is absurd. Also absurd is your assumption that Iraq and Transjordan
were “allies” at the time – they were not – but we'll let that blunder
of yours pass.
>>The Damascus government held a Pan-Arab Congress at
>>Bludan in September 1937, attended by over five hundred Arab
>>delegates, which declared that the Jewish National Home and the
>>Palestine mandate must be terminated immediately in favor of a
>>sovereign Arab state; additionally, all Jewish immigration must be
>>halted forthwith, or else the Arab states would forego their relations
>>with Western democracies in favor of alliances with the Axis powers.
>Nor so clever as they might have thought in 1937, eh?
You really will have to explain more fully your little chortle.
>>>Its ideas were officially abandoned by the Foreign
>>>Office and government as "unworkable" primarily because it involved
>>>the forced transfer of large numbers of Arabs to be imposed by
>>>BRITAIN. It would have involved the involuntary transfer of 1200 Jews
>>>but of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. That's why it was unworkable.
>>>The actual land distribution under the Peel Plan did make some sense
>>>however and it would have physically separated the two states.
>>HHW's foregoing comments underscore Jack's remark that HHW knows
>>nothing of the history of the region. The Peel Commission's plan was
>>never “offcially” abandoned. It was “reworked”.
>>After the release of the Peel Commission Report, Palestine Arabs --
>>this time aided by Nazi Germany -- renewed their terror campaign which
>>had led to the Peel Commission in the first place. As a result of Arab
>>violence, which far exceeded that of the previous two years, the
>>British dispatched another commission, the Palestine Partition
>>(Woodhead) Commission, ostensibly “to determine methods by which
>>partition would be carried out and to recommend boundaries for the
>>proposed Arab and Jewish states.” The Woodhead Commission arrived in
>>Palestine -- along with beefed-up British troop strength – at the time
>>when “Axis blackmail diplomacy in Europe obliged Whitehall to become
>>increasingly solicitous of Arab friendship along the Middle East
>>lifeline” and “the Chamberlain government revealed its willingness to
>>appease Hitler and Mussolini at the expense of other, smaller
>>nations.”
>Delightful,
I'm sure you find the imminent annihilation of European Jews nothing
but “delightful”. No doubt you're positively gleeful that in December
1938, due to Arab pressure, the British rejected Jewish pleas for the
rescue of 10,000 Jewish children from central Europe – as they
rejected a similar plea in 1943, due to Arab pressure, so the children
were sent to the death camps. Real delightful, huh? The Arabs thought
so.
>before WW II the Arabs should have chosen the colonial,
>Zionist Jews of Israel over the Germans in the world balance of power?
>Perhaps you can tell us why. Would it be that the Germans were racist
>and the Jewish immigrants were not?
Perhaps you can phrase your questions in a more intelligible – and
intelligent – manner? If they're not merely more of the snide,
childish comments you pop off with, whenever you are confronted with
facts that shed light through the holes in your parroted dogma.
>>The Palestine Partition (Woodhead) Commission's Report was submitted
>>to parliament on 9th November 1938 (which was also the day of
>>Kristallnact), and declared, in sum, that the Peel partition plan was
>>“unfeasible.” The reasons given were that a large Arab minority would
>>remain in the projected Jewish state, and thereby restrict land
>>available for tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants; and that while a
>>Jewish state would conceivably become economically viable, an Arab
>>state, deprived of Jewish educational and technological superiority,
>>would not.
>A racist conclusion if I ever saw one.
It was the reason advanced by Colonial Secretary Macdonald in his 24th
November 1938 speech to Parliament, as to why Jews would be able to
get by on far less territory than the Arabs in partitioned western
Palestine,
[Also in Parliament:
Macdonald: “I cannot remember a time when I was not told stories about
Nazareth and Galilee, about Jerusalem and Bethlehem where was born the
Prince of Peace.”
Churchill: “I thought he was born in Birmingham.”]
>>London officially endorsed the Woodhead Report. The Jews noted that
>>the Jewish state would comprise less than one-twentieth of western
>>Palestine, less than one-hundredth of the original Palestine mandated
>>area, and that most of the existing Jewish towns, villages and
>>landholdings would be granted to the Arab state. The Arabs rejected
>>the plan because it envisaged Jewish sovereignty, even in a
>>drastically attenuated Jewish state.
>Like children fighting over a toy.
“Oh, you now demonize them as children?”
- HHW, Dec 25, 10:31 pm
>> >What seems to skew the Peel Plan in terms of land allocated
>>>to the two
>>>parties is the Negev. You complain about Peel's 80/20 as being unfair,
>>>yet at present it is 80/20 in your favor and you still complain.
>>Where did Jack complain about that?
>He complains about Israel not being given or having succeeded in
>taking the West Bank. What could you conclude?
That you're lying, as usual.
>> Moreover, where, exactly, did Peel
>>allocate land “80/20”, as HHW claims?
>I think that was Jack's assessment.
>Why shouldn't I use it?
Why not, indeed, since you're making it up anyway. What Jack actually
posted – in the part you snipped-- was:
“YOu know nothing about the history of the region, so it's
useless talking to you. Why don't you start with the
Royal Peel Commission of 1937 for starters? At that
time, the ARabs were offered to get 80% of "Palestine"
and rejected it. You know nothing and hence disqualified
to make any statements about Israel and its history.”
Once again you prove the validity of Jack's assessment on your
historical acumen – such as that may be.
>> Peel provided that for the
>>division of western Palestine and Transjordan into three regions: a
>>Jewish state in the coastal plain and the Galilee, a much larger Arab
>>state in the rest of western Palestine and Transjordan (i.e., the West Bank HHW),
Don't insert your ignorant additions into my posts. If you have a
comment to make, make it, instead of hiding it. You're wrong anyway;
at the time of the Peel Report, Transjordan did not include the so-
called “West Bank”.
>>and a
>>permanently mandated British territory including the Jerusalem-
>>Bethlehem area, with a corridor to the sea, and British bases in
>>Galilee and the Gulf of Aqaba. Since there was no way to divide
>>Palestine without handing over 400,000 Jews to Arab domination, or a
>>substantial Arab minority in Jewish territory, “a plan was therefore
>>LATER formulated for transferring land and exchanging populations on
>>the Greco-Turkish model of fourteen years before. In 1937, at any
>>rate, the notion that large irredentist minorities would remain on
>>either side of the partition line was never envisaged, except as a
>>consequence to be avoided.”
>The source I consulted said that the Peel Plan envisaged the transfer
>of only 1,200 Jews but hundreds of thousands of Arabs. My impression
>was that no Jews would remain in in the Arab sector. But perhaps I
>misremember?
Let's say you may “misremember”. No doubt you “misremember” your
“source” as well, but it's likely you're embarrassed to cite it.
Either way, you're wrong.
The Peel Report suggested "a transfer of land and, as far as possible,
an exchange of population". Got that? That exchange included Jews as
well as Arabs. Got that? JEWS AND ARABS. Moreover, the report did NOT
suggest transfer of Jews or Arabs outside Palestine, but to the
territories of the respective Arab and Jewish states, “in order to
prevent friction between the two communities”. Got that? See the Royal
Commission Report, pp 291-293. It was suggested, not proposed, nor
envisaged.
Later – i.e., after the publication of the Peel Report – Weizmann told
Ormsby-Gore that “the whole success of the scheme depended on whether
the Government genuinely did or did not wish to carry out this
recommendation; the transfer could be carried out only by the British
Government, and not by the Jews.” If transfer of Jewish and Arab
populations were to be effected, Ben-Gurion asked the high commission
if the government would make it possible for Arab cultivators to be
settled in eastern Palestine. If eastern Palestine was closed to the
Jews, Ben-Gurion reasoned, surely it couldn't be closed to Arabs as
well. The high commissioner asked Ben-Gurion if Jews would be prepared
to spend money on the settlement of such Palestinian Arabs in eastern
Palestine, and Ben-Gurion said they would certainly consider it.
So much for the “transfer” squall.
>>London announced its commitment to the Peel Plan simultaneously with
>>its publication on 7th July 1937.
>Perhaps, but why does my source say that Peel was rejected as
>unfeasible?
Probably because your “source” is full of crappe. Read the foregoing,
repeated immediately below, CAREFULLY:
>>The Palestine Partition (Woodhead) Commission's Report was submitted
>>to parliament on 9th November 1938 (which was also the day of
>>Kristallnact), and declared, in sum, that the Peel partition plan was
>>“unfeasible.” The reasons given were that a large Arab minority would
>>remain in the projected Jewish state, and thereby restrict land
>>available for tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants; and that while a
>>Jewish state would conceivably become economically viable, an Arab
>>state, deprived of Jewish educational and technological superiority,
>>would not.
Don't bother commenting that Colonial Secretary Macdonald's comment to
parliament was a “racist conclusion”. At the time, the bulk of the
Palestinian Arab (Muslim) population was illiterate, therefore the
comment is entirely in order.
>And then, why did the 1939 study opt for a single bi-
>national state? Then, ultimately, the UN opted for two binational
>states.
You refer, of course, to your “UN Plan of 1939.” Until I've seen this
“UN Plan of 1939”, I can hardly comment on why it did (or did not)
“opt for a single bi-national state.” AFAIK, the UN plan NEVER “opted
for two bi-national states.”
>Can't one see here a struggle over the implications of ethnic
>cleansing as public policy?
The Arabs certainly intended to “ethnically cleanse” the Jews.
>And which policy did the Jews decide to
>implement unilaterally? The aggressively Arabrein solution.
<yawn>The fact that Arabs were aggressively massacring Jews, and,
later, opting to “finish Hitler's work”, seems not to register behind
your eyeballs.
>>The League Mandates Commission was
>>unenthusiastic, and proposed that the period of apprenticeship be
>>extended for the near future. Abdallah and the Nashashibi faction were
>>not unfavorable, but the Mufti and the Arab Higher Committee rejected
>>it with contempt and formally turned it down. Within two months, with
>>aid from Nazi Germany, the Mufti renewed the previous violence,
>>murdering almost 3,000 Arabs in the process.
>We should be very proud, Deborah. We've killed a million Iraqis.
When you say “we”, I presume you mean yourself and the government of
Iran. In any case, the subject under discussion is British Palestine,
the Peel Report of 1937, and events immediately subsequent thereto –
not any hyperbolic fantazia about a million Iraqis --and, in case it
escaped your notice, Iranians -- killed in the war between those two
countries.
>>>It is evident you want it all.
>>Who is the “you” who “wants it all”?Jack?
>Jacks a Zionist as are the Israeli ruling clique. Both want it all. So
>do you.
How odd, then, that they have never displayed any such inclination –
as opposed to Palestine Arabs – and that their actions, such as
returning the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace, among others, are
counterindicative of your unfounded and unsubstantiated claims.
>>He wasn't alive at the time
>>of the Peel plan,
>Irrelevant. "All" has nothing to do with Peel.
But it has everything to do with your personal fantazia, as well as
the dogma you continually parrot.
>> and even though HHW was alive at the time, he was
>>certainly unaware of it.HHW is also unaware of the fact that it was
>>demonstrably the Arabs who wanted it all.
>Irrelevant too.
Facts usually are “irrelevant” to you, so that's nothing new.
>We become "aware" even of recent events in significant
>detail through the reading of memoirs, histories, journals and at the
>most shallow level, journalism.
By your own admission, you've read few of any of them – shallow
journalism excepted, of course.
>>>Your difficulty in the global political sense
>>>is that the Israelis have squandered the entire reservoir of sympathy
>>>due them as the result of the Holocaust and more.
>>Israelis have certainly squandered the sympathy of “the world”,
>>whatever that may be, but it's certainly not as a result of the
>>Holocaust. What “sympathy” is “due” to Israelis anyway? I have no
>>automatic sympathy for them, except when I think how they, and they
>>alone, are held to standards to which no other nation on earth is held
>>– least of all Arab nations.
>I don't believe you.
You have ably demonstrated your extreme difficulty in believing facts
which contradict your dogma.
>>>> At that time, the Arabs were offered to get 80% of
>>>>"Palestine" and rejected it.
>>>The "Arabs" didn't have a government.
>>Neither did the Jews. But the Palestinian Jews had the Jewish Agency,
>>and the Palestine Arabs had the Arab Higher Committee and the Supreme
>>Moslem Council, both of which rejected the Peel Plan.
>The Jews had a quasi government.
So did the Arabs, in case you hadn't noticed. Probably you hadn't,
since you rarely notice facts. In the Arabs; case, the facts concern
the nature of their quasi-government, the Supreme Moslem Council and
the Arab Higher Committee. Neither “ever served as more than organs
for propaganda or violence,” nor had either “provided administrative
training or governmental experience.”
>There was more to it than the Jewish
>Agency. At worst they were much better organized than the
>Palestinians. That's commonly understood among the historians.
It's “commonly understood” because it's a common fact. Why is their
superior organizational ability an “at worst” situation? The
Nashashibis and the Husseinis, et al, weren't devoid of ability, you
know.
>>>There was no one who could be
>>>their legitimate negotiator, certainly not the clan leader Husseini.
>>On the contrary, Amin al-Husayni, as president of the Supreme Moslem
>>Council and chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, was one of the
>>“legitimate negotiators” demanded by the Palestine Arabs, who refused
>>to accept any other.
>How did the Palestinian Arabs who had no government go about
>"demanding" Husseini?
The Palestine Arab quasi-government was vested in the Supreme Moslem
Council and the Arab Higher Committee. In fact, the one financial
concession made by the mandatory government following the partition
vote was to the Supreme Moslem council; the Jews got nothing. Since
the Husseinis so completely liquidated political opposition to
themselves, the British had no choice but to extend them full
recognition as the legitimate voice of the Palestine Arabs. In May
1947, the UN General Assembly accredited the Higher Committee as the
official representative of the Palestine Arabs. The Supreme Moslem
Council was accorded recognition as the legitimate representative of
the Palestine Arabs in the early 1920s, the Arab Higher Committee
received the same recognition in the 1930s, until the renewal of their
terrorism in September 1937 forced the British to declare both
organizations illegal.
>> From the Peel Commission through the Round Table
>>Conferences, the Anglo-American Inquiry Committee, and the UNSCOP, it
>>was the Husayni-dominated Arab Higher Committee which spoke for the
>>Palestine Arabs.
>He presumed to do so and there were few if any alternatives due to
>Palestinian civic chaos.
“He”? The Supreme Moslem Council had been the representative body for
the Palestine Arabs since the 1920s. In the 1930s, it was joined by
the Arab Higher Committee, the latter being an aggregate of most of
the Arab political parties in Palestine. The “Palestinian civic chaos”
was the creation of the latter.
>>>The Jews had a strong but unofficial government and Ben-Gurion *would
>>>have* accepted Peel but with the same mental reservations with which
>>>he accepted the subsequent UN Partition Plan.
>>HHW imagines himself privy to Ben-Gurion's private deliberations.
>This is proved in Pappe's book which you refuse to acknowledge
>contains anything probative.
If Pappe, too, imagines himself privy to Ben-Gurion's private
deliberations, one can only respond that Pappe imagines a lot of
things. He proves nothing, other than his belief that “facts are
irrelevant.” Having read his crappe, I can state that the most honest
parts are the end papers.
>>>It is without doubt that
>>>he wanted all of Palestine but without the Palestinians and was
>>>determined to take it by force and to expel them if necessary.
>>It certainly is doubtful that B-G ever wanted “all of Palestine but
>>without the Palestinians[sic]”. Apart from the fact that Ben-Gurion
>>himself was a Palestinian –
>Oh, so we now have to confuse the issue by describing any creole a
>"Palestinian"? Why do you want so badly to obscure the issues,
>Deborah?
“Obscure”? What's your racist blither about “creoles”? Ben-Gurion was
a Palestinian. Golda Meir was a Palestinian. Yitzhak Ben-Zvi was a
Palestinian. Rachel Yanait and Mayna Shochat were Palestinans, and
Yigal Alon and Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan were native Palestinians.
Arabs of the time called themselves Southern Syrians. The Jerusalem
Post used to be the Palestine Post, the Israeli Philharmonic was the
Palestine Philharmonic. Get the picture? It is extremely that B-G ever
wanted “all of Palestine but without the Palestinians[sic]”, and those
who claim otherwise are lying or don't know what they're talking
about.
>>the Arabs considered themselves “southern
>>Syrians” -- none of his statements or writings show any indication
>>that he was determined to “take it by force and to expel” the Arabs.
>Read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You don't have to like it.
Already read it, along with his History of Palestine. At only 300
pages each, with the bulk being simplified propaganda, neither require
much intellectual effort, and both prove Pappe’s assertion that he’s
not interested in facts. The fact remains that Ben-Gurion did NOT want
“all of Palestine but without the Palestinians[sic]”, nor was he
determined to “take it by force and to expel” the Arabs. As he wrote,
“We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place.
All our aspiration is built on the assumption—proven throughout all
our activity in the Land -- that there is enough room in the country
for ourselves and the Arabs.”
>>>There
>>>was active Jewish planning going on at this very time (1937) to do it
>>>unilaterally.
>>Twaddle.
>Read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You don't have to like it.
I've posted a short, separate response in the hopes of allaying this
childish and insistent whinging on silly old Pappe. See: A Few
Corrections to Pappe's Crappe.
>>>Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish
>>>"acceptance" of the UN Plan of 1939 which represented abandonment of
>>>the idea of transfer and yet the immediate Jewish implementation of
>>>the Nakba,
>>Amazing! Not only does HHW imagine himself privy to Ben-Gurion's
>>private thoughts, HHW also imagines the existence of the United
>>Nations in 1939, a “UN Plan of 1939”, and Jewish acceptance thereof in
>>1939.
>An obvious mistake, Deborah.
I was going to let it slide – very generous of me – until you tried to
rectify it with the following.
>Here's how I wished it to read:
>Actual Zionist intentions are proved by the Jewish "acceptance" of the
>UN Partition plan of November 1947 which represented abandonment of
>the idea of transfer (ethnic cleansing)
No, Hunter, your mistake is your attempt to brush off your jump from
“UN Plan of 1939” to “the UN Partition plan of November 1947” as an
“obvious mistake”; it strains credibility. So does your characterizing
the UN partition plan as an “abandonment of the idea of transfer
(ethnic cleansing).” To begin with, “transfer” is not the same as
“ethnic cleansing”; “ethnic cleansing” is what Jews in Arab countries
suffered, along with the Jews of Palestine. There was no “abandonment
of the idea of transfer” in 1947, simply because there had never been
a seriously considered idea of transfer, even by the British, who
proposed it. Even Jabotinsky, leader of the rightwing New Zionist
Organization (Revisionist Party) – I assume you've heard of him –
rejected the idea of transfer.
"Ben-Gurion, testifying before UNSCOP on 8 July 1947, went out of his
way to reject the 1945 British Labor Party platform ‘International
Post-war Settlement' which supported the encouragement of the movement
of the Palestine Arabs to the neighbouring countries to make room for
Jews." Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, p 28
“The idea of a population transfer was never Zionist policy. Ben-
Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were
given the right to evict the Arabs, they would not make use of it.
Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room in
Palestine for both Jews and Arabs following the industrialization of
the country and the introduction of intensive methods of agriculture.”
W. Laqueur, A History of Zionism, p 232
You dishonestly fail to note that population transfer suggestions
included transferring Jews as well as Arabs.
You can stop beating the transfer idea now, it's a dead horse.
>and yet the immediate Jewish
>implementation of the Nakba which was an obvious major episode of
>ethnic cleansing.
As stated above, the “immediate Jewish implementation of the Nakba” --
how your sort love to parrot your your recently-discovered terms –
left 384 Jews dead and 725 wounded in Arab attacks from December 1947
through February 1948 – far more than the casualties sustained by
Arabs; in March 1948 alone, 271 Jews were killed, again, a bit more
than the 257 Arab casualties. A pretty poorly planned “Nakba”, one
might say, if one weren't set on shoveling Palliebull and declaring it
sweetly scented.
>I might add that the planning for "transfer" of
>large numbers of Arabs had a ten year history prior to 1947. This is
>all proved in Pappe with the appropriate quotations and citations to
>Israeli government records.
Pappe's research is shoddier than I gave him credit, and I credited
him with very shoddy research. “Planning for 'transfer' had a ten year
history prior to 1947”? I think not. Arthur Ruppin suggested a limited
population transfer of fellahin to Syria; the suggestion didn't
encompass the whole of Palestine's Arab population, only those Arabs
squatting on lands which the owners had sold to Jews. Ruppin's
suggestion was shot down. That was in 1911. Some two decades later,
Lord Passfield suggested to Weizmann that transfer of troublesome
Arabs to “Transjordan might be a way out”. Weizmann rejected it.
And please don't bring up any truncated quotes attributed to Ben-
Gurion. As he wrote in 1937, “We do not wish and do not need to expel
Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the
assumption—proven throughout all our activity in the Land - - that
there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.”And
as he told his party members following the partition vote in 1947, "In
our state there will be non-Jews as well—and all of them will be equal
citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the
state will be their state as well." Plans were discussed for Arab
health care, education, an Arabic-language press, incorporating Arabs
into the government, and Arab-Jewish cultural and intellectual
interaction – hardly the actions of those about to impose "transfer"
of “large numbers of Arabs”.
>Other than ideology and clinging to the
>traditional patriotic narrative, you have no basis for rejecting it.
I have every basis for rejecting Pappe's crappe. Pappe proves nothing,
as you keep trumpeting, save his dislike of facts. See my other post:
A Few Corrections to Pappe's Crappe.
>>On 17th May 1939, the British government issued the notorious White
>>Paper, which established a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants to
>>Palestine for the next five years, plus another 25,000 Jewish
>>refugees. After five years and 75,000 new Jewish immigrants, further
>>Jewish immigration would be permitted only if the Arabs acquiesced.
>>Sale of land to Jews was prohibited immediately. The 1939 White Paper
>>“sealed off Palestine as a haven for all but an insignificant fraction
>>of Jewish refugees, and this at the moment when European Jewry faced a
>>mortal threat to its continued physical survival.”
>You presume that the British in 1939 knew the mind of Hitler then much
>less in 1942.
Read the foregoing quote CAREFULLY:
The 1939 White Paper “sealed off Palestine as a haven for all but an
insignificant fraction of Jewish refugees, and this at the moment when
European Jewry faced a mortal threat to its continued physical
survival.”
If you need to read it several times, do so.
>>Not exactly HHW's““UN Plan of 1939” to which he imagines Jews
>>accepted.
>What I meant was the UN Plan of 1947, the partition plan which would
>have led to two bi-national states and an enclave for Jerusalem in
>international hands.
Now you're REALLY stretching your “obvious mistake” excuse, Hunter.
>>>the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which involved three
>>>times the number of Arabs "transferred" than Peel had
>>>contemplated.
>>The Peel Plan provided for no “transfer”. That came later. And the
>>only “ethnic cleansing” which began in 1939 was the “ethnic cleansing”
>>of the Jews of Europe.
>Again, from memory,
Which, as you have proven, time and again, is quite fawlty.
>my source says that several hundred thousand Arabs
>would have been transfered under Peel but only 1,200 Palestinians.
>Should I believe you instead?
Of course not, Hunter. You should, instead, contemplate and weigh the
facts I have presented, as opposed to what you have read from your
“source”. Sheesh, Hunter, you were an attorney; did you never, once,
in your entire career, get into an open courtroom with a client, only
to find out, at the last and final, irretrievable moment, that your
client had bullshitted you most royally?
You've got a large bug up your butt about the “Israel Lobby”. Try to
examine why—along with why the Oil Lobby and the Arab Lobby don't faze
you at all.
>>>>You know nothing and hence disqualified
>>>>to make any statements about Israel and its history.
>>That would be obvious from only HHW's usual blither on Jews, Judaism,
>>and Israel, even without his imaginary “UN Plan of 1939” and Jewish
>>acceptance thereof.
>Shall we speak of your usual blither about Mexicans, Palestinian
>cannibals and American politics?
You're given to pointless and tangential sidedodges whenever you're
confronted by facts, so why not? How about the Hamas government's
imposition of Sharia law? Floggings and amputations and crucifixion,
Hunter, that's what the bill passed by your “democratically elected”
Palestinian government now imposes upon the population it controls.
>>>>The truth is that
>>>>Islam will never accept a Jewish state of one block square.
>>>Fine,Jack, but they're willing to do so now
>>They're not. The Arabs want it all.
Since you don't comment, may one presume you agree that the Arabs want
it all?
>>>and you are not willing
>>>to permit it to happen. You want it all just as did Ben-Gurion.
>>Unless HHW is stating that B-G lied for decades, and that he had some
>>secret agenda which he revealed to nobody on this planet (except,
>>perhaps, his mother), Ben-Gurion made it clear in numerous statements
>>from 1921 onwards that he did not want all of Palestine, and that he
>>believed in the possibility of direct agreement with the Arabs.
>We judge him by his writings and his and his successors' actions. He
>wasn't fully successful in 1948 but he and his colleagues were in 1967
>with the Golan and Gaza as frosting on the cake.
You are overreaching again, Hunter, into areas you know nothing about.
In 1948, BG succeeded; he had been told by Yisrael Galili and Yigael
Yadin that they had only a 50-50 chance of surviving. They survived.
By 1967, BG had been gone from the political arena for years—down in
Sde Boker, where he listed his occupation, incidentally, as
“agricultural worker.”-- Moshe Dayan, the international media''s fair-
haired boy, whose career BG had promoted since the 1940s, didn't even
bother to let him in on what was going on, despite BG's request.
You stated BG should be judged by his writings? Then read them – in
particular, “My Talks with Arab Leaders”. Of course those, and Shabtai
Teveth's “Ben-Gurion and the Palestine Arabs”, shoot down your
“source”, so you probably won't. As well as a writer, Ben-Gurion was
an indefatigable reader, and left a personal library of over 23,000
volumes.
Judging BG by his successors' actions is rubbish, and you know it.
>>>Your ideology is ethnic cleansing. Why not just admit it up front?
>>Because it isn't. It's HHW's ideology – and that of the Arabs, too, of
>>course, who have proven it for 13 centuries.
>So you finally admit that the Arabs have been in possession of
>Palestine for 13 centuries. At last.
You seem to have a problem with reading, as well as with facts,
Hunter. I can't admit that Arabs were in possession of Palestine for
the period you suggest, because they weren't. They controlled
Palestine for a little over three hundred years; then they lost it,
and never possessed it again. As for “ethnic cleansing”, that was
always SOP for invading Muslim Arabs.
>This means nothing. It's an unsupported denial of undeniable Israeli
>policy in both 1947-48 and 1967 with episodes in between.
Your comment means nothing, Hunter. Israeli policy didn't exist in
1947. In 1948, Israeli “policy” was to survive the onslaught of seven
invading Arab armies, with no help from the “international community”.
As Jack noted, and you have since proven, “You know nothing about the
history of the region”, so let's stick to the subjects at hand, before
you embarrass yourself further.
>>>The British struggled to resolve the difficulties they themselves had
>>>created under Balfour.
>>Balfour created no difficulties.
>Sure it did. It begged the question of how a Jewish homeland in an
>Arab land would be designed and created. It inveighed against
>discrimination against the native population while not further
>describing what a Jewish homeland would mean.
Really? Let's see what the Balfour Declaration – actually, a letter
from Lord Balfour to the president of the British Zionist Federation –
states:
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf
of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration
of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has
been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the
establishment in Palestine of a national home for
the Jewish people, and will use their best
endeavours to facilitate the achievment of this
object, it being clearly understood that nothing
shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish
communities in Palestine, or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other
country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this
declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
If you had actually studied the subjects you try to address, you would
know that by the time the Balfour Declaration was issued, the
principal rationale for it no longer existed. Allenby's army was on
the offensive. The issue of Palestine was decided in the battles
between the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, the Ottoman army, and the
Asienkorps. But you don't care for facts, do you?.
>Herzel addressed the
>issue more candidly in the 19th Century and the problem was not to go
>away. Apparently his words were not spread across Balfour's desk
>before issuance of his Declaration.
You are very vague here, Hunter, what are you trying to say? Beyond
the obvious, that is, which is your usual attempt to claim knowledge
you lack. What issue do you imagine Herzl was addressing “more
candidly”? As for your assumption that Herzl's “words were not spread
across Balfour's desk”, let me assure you, Hunter, that Herzl's words
were indeed spread across Lord Balfour's desk, even before Balfour was
prime minister. Your vague sidedodge aside, let us return to the issue
which you claim that Herzl addressed “more candidly in the 19th
Century”.
What issue did “Herzel” address “more candidly in the 19th Century”,
Hunter?
>>It was issued in order to gain Jewish
>>support during WWI. In fact, the Kaiser's government was
>>contemplating issuing something along the same lines as Balfour, but
>>the British beat them to it.
>Brits were a far better choice than the Huns, nicht wahr?
Grasping again, are you, Hunter?
What issue did “Herzel” address “more candidly in the 19th Century”?
>As
Forgot another sidedodge, did you, Hunter?
>>>The 1939 MacDonald study shows that they had
>>>abandoned Peel's reliance on forced transfer, the single most
>>>dangerous obstacle to a peace settlement:
>>There was some “1939 MacDonald study”? Was this part of
>>HHW's“UN Plan of 1939?”
>Obviously not. I see you do not deny what I say.
You need better glasses, Hunter. Was there, as you claim, a “1939
MacDonald study”? a “UN Plan of 1939”? I can hardly deny either
without knowing what they are. What was that “1939 MacDonald study”
you mentioned? And, of course, your “UN Plan of 1939”.
>>As above, the Peel Report placed no “reliance on forced transfer”,
>>as HHW claims.
>Do you have a basis for rejecting, for example, Wiki on Peel?
The Wiki article on Peel mentions no “reliance on forced transfer”, as
you claim. Nothing in the summary of the Peel report suggests any
“reliance on forced transfer”, as you claim.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/08e...
Nothing in the Report itself suggests any “reliance on forced
transfer,” as you claim.
http://domino.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf
Or maybe you're “misremembering” again?
>>>The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after
>>>Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over
>>>it,
>>Early in 1938, Malcolm MacDonald, former dominion secretary [and son
>>of Ramsay MacD], replaced Ormsby-Gore as Colonial Secretary. MacDonald
>>immediately ordered the Government of Palestine to impose even tighter
>>restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine.
>To avoid making the solution of the problem in Palestine more
>difficult, perhaps?
To appease the Arabs. Axis blackmail diplomacy in Europe obliged
Whitehall to become increasingly solicitous of Arab friendship along
the Middle East lifeline [and] the Chamberlain government revealed its
willingness to appease Hitler and Mussolini and the expense of other,
smaller nations.
>>On 9th November 1938
>>the Woodhead Report (the Palestine Commission Partition Report) was
>>submitted to parliament. “It declared, in sum, that the Peel plan was
>>unfeasible, and based this assertion upon the huge Arab minority that
>>would remain within the projected Jewish state and the restricted land
>>available there for the settlement of tens of thousands of new Jewish
>>immigrants.”
>Nothing I said deviates from this, Deborah.
Obviously you're “misremembering” again.
>>No reference to “forced transfer” or “ethnic cleansing” there.
>Sure there was. Think of the huge Arab minority which the author
>mentions. What was to be done with that minority under Peel? It was to
>be expelled.
Read slooowly and carefully: THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR EXPULSION OF
ARABS UNDER THE PEEL PLAN. THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR “FORCED
TRANSFER” OR “ETHNIC CLEANSING” OF ARABS UNDER THE PEEL PLAN.
Got that?
>>“While a Jewish state conceivably might become economically viable,
>>this was unlikely to be true of a Palestine Arab state deprived of a
>>Jewish hinterland.
>As if that were the the business of the Brits.
As a matter of fact, it WAS the business of the Brits. In case you
misremember again – or, more likely, never knew -- Britain was the
mandatory power, and, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, took
with full seriousness its mandatory obligations to nurture its Arab
wards to independence.
>>What, then, was the solution? The [Woodhead] report
>>professed to find in it a “modification” of partition by which an Arab
>>state and a Jewish state (drastically attenuated) would be linked
>>together in an enforced economic union, both nations to be deprived of
>>sovereignty in all matters of economic policy.”
>The problem, created by your ideology, had become intractable when
>confronted with facts on the ground. Nothing has changed now has it?
What “facts on the ground”? You've presented very few.
Back to the Woodhead Report. Under its proposal, the Jewish state
comprised less than one-twentieth of western Palestine and less than
one-hundredth of the mandated area originally awarded to Britain in
1920. Most of the existing Jewish towns and villages and landholdings
were excluded from the boundaries. The Arabs, to whom the proposal
gave the lion's share, rejected it because it still envisaged Jewish
sovereignty, even in highly diluted form.
>>>was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville
>>>Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for
>>>Palestine was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine
>>>governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers
>>“MacDonald revealed the contours of the government's emerging
>>Palestine formula on March 15 [1939]. He proposed that Jewish
>>immigration be limited to 75,000 during the next five years, with
>>further immigration to depend upon Arab consent. Land sales would be
>>similarly curtailed. His one concession to the Zionists was to DROP
>>the idea of an independent Palestine with an Arab majority government.
>>Although both sides rejected MacDonald's formula, it was quite obvious
>>by then that the Jewish position had drastically worsened.”
>By what standard?
Don't be stupid.
>>>in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish
>>>immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a
>>>regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000,
>>>spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After
>>>this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission
>>>of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on
>>>the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III)."
>>Apparently there are large areas in which HHW's imagination, like his
>>historical knowledge, is severely restricted.
>My narrative of the evolution of British attitudes stands intact.
Only as another pile of crappe.
>Peel
>recommended partition accompanied by expulsion. That was not accepted.
It wasn't accepted because Peel didn't recommend expulsion. This is a
lie.
>The policy became a bi-national state with a rejection of expulsion.
Wrong again, on both counts.
>Then the UN partition plan also rejected expulsion.
A decade later, following WWII, and again, there was no rejection of
expulsion, because none had been proposed.
>And finally Ben-Gurion accepted the UN Plan
As he had accepted Peel.
>but put expulsion immediately into effect
>nevertheless. That was deceitful at best.
At best, your parroted lie that Ben-Gurion “put expulsion immediately
into effect” is pure-d bullshit of the brownest ray serene.
>>“In Britain itself, the White Paper met with serious criticism on all
>>sides. The press was almost uniformly hostile...No criticism was as
>>ascerbic, however, as Churchill's. 'THis pledge as a home for
>>refugees, of an asylum, was not made to the Jews of Palestine,' he
>>emphasized, 'but to the Jews outside Palestine, to that vast, unhappy
>>mass of scattered, persecuted, wandering Jews whose intense,
>>unchanging, unconquerable desire has been for a National Home. That is
>>the pledge which was given, and that is the pledge which we are now
>>asked to break.'
>The promise of Balfour was ambiguous, but it did reject expulsion and
>any kind of discrimination.
Balfour didn't “reject” expulsion. It was never considered. And the
“promise” was quickly broken by the mandatory power.
>>Several days later, at its annual conference in
>>Southport, the British Labor party repudiated the White Paper, thereby
>>endorsing the stand of its members in Parliament.”
>>[The White Paper passed in Commons with 268 votes in favor, 179 votes
>>against, and 110 absentions]
>>“The Chamberlain government's stringently anti-Zionist interpretation
>>of the mandate required the approval not only of Parliament, but also
>>of the League Permanent Mandates Commission...The members of the
>>Commission did not accept [MacDonald's] argument. In their report to
>>the League Council, they declared that 'the policy set out in the
>>White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in
>>agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had
>>placed upon the Palestine Mandate.'”
>>“The MacDonald White Paper by and large succeeded in keeping the Arab
>>world quiet, and this was its rationale.”
>>Like the Evian Conference of 1938 and the Woodhead Report, the White
>>Paper showed Hitler “that 'the Jewish question' could not be solved by
>>emigration and that a different sort of solution had to be found.”
>Who are you quoting here, Deborah?
Do try to get your head out of Pappe's crappe, wash your face, and
look it up. It's in Sachar and Teveth.
Deborah
Ariadne
IDF strike on the UNWRA school from which
mortars were being fired:
That he learned from the IDF that only 8 to 10
people were killed in the IDF's strike.... Shalom
also said that the school had explosives inside
of it. He said that many of the dead were killed
by secondary explosions.
drahcir
> On Jan 7, 6:56 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
HHW has accused me of "clipping" with the intent to obfuscate
innumerable times, yet when I ask him to produce just one example, he
puts his head down, looks upward shyly, sticks his left index finger
in his mouth, twists his hair with his right hand, sticks his left
foot behind his right and swivels it slowly back and forth on the
ball, and suddenly has nothing to say.
> > I must bother you. You haved clipped the following:
>
> One might say something similar to you, Hunter, regarding the
> following facts presented in opposition to your unfounded comments:
>
> Subject: Re: John Mearsheimer - Invoking the Holocaust to Defend the
> Occupation
> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:55:48 -0800 (PST)http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/1b3e1d9ac652df4a
> ...
>
> read more »
Peace Power
> HHW, the drunk, the proven liar, the obvious coward hopes that the
> issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
> hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
*So* you!
Can't respond with intelligent answers so it's hasabra time!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Jewish Women Occupy Israeli Consulate in Toronto
UPDATE:
Toronto: Wednesday January 8, 2009 Time: 11:20 am
Arrests Underway ...
Police have moved in to arrest a group of Jewish Canadian women who
are currently occupying the Israeli consulate at 180 Bloor Street West
in Toronto.
CTVNews: A senior officer at 52 Division said the protesters would be
taken to 53 Division, where they will face tresspassing and failure-to-
disperse charges.
CKUT MTL - Audio: Inside the Israeli consulate - Our government "one
of the worst in the world" on this issue
Jewish Women Occupy Israeli Consulate in Toronto
Toronto: Wednesday January 8, 2009 Time: 10:25 am
A diverse group of Jewish Canadian women are currently occupying the
Israeli consulate at 180 Bloor Street West in Toronto. This action is
in protest against the on-going Israeli assault on the people of Gaza.
The group is carrying out this occupation in solidarity with the 1.5
million people of Gaza and to ensure that Jewish voices against the
massacre in Gaza are being heard. They are demanding that Israel end
its military assault and lift the 18-month siege on the Gaza Strip to
allow humanitarian aid into the territory.
Israel has been carrying out a full-scale military assault on the Gaza
Strip since December 27, 2008. At least 660 people have been killed
and 3000 injured in the air strikes and in the ground invasion that
began on January 3, 2009. Israel has ignored international calls for a
ceasefire and is refusing to allow food, adequate medical supplies and
other necessities of life into the Gaza Strip.
Protesters are outraged at Israel's latest assault on the Palestinian
people and by the Canadian government's refusal to condemn these
massacres.They are deeply concerned that Canadians are hearing the
views of pro-Israel groups who are being represented as the only voice
of Jewish Canadians. The protesters have occupied the consulate to
send a clear statement that many Jewish-Canadians do not support
Israel's violence and apartheid policies. They are joining with people
of conscience all across the world who are demanding an end to Israeli
aggression and justice for the Palestinian people.
The group includes: Judy Rebick, professor; Judith Deutsch,
psychoanalyst and president of Science for Peace; B.H. Yael,
filmmaker; Smadar Carmon, a Canadian Israeli peace activist and
others.
Spokespersons for the group are outside the Israeli consulate.
Posted by yayacanada at 12:30 PM| PERMALINK
Labels: Gaza, human rights, Israel Palestine, Israeli Apartheid
23 comments:
Naida said...
I love this! Awesome job ladies!
If I was in your area, I would join you.
I just wish the MSM would report on this, but sadly they won't :(
January 7, 2009 1:31 PM
Penny said...
Yeah, what a great bunch of gals.
I have posted a link to this story on my blog and a link to the group
these people are affilliated with.
It gives such hope to people who just want to see peace, and need to
know that Jewish and Palestinians can get along and work together and
be productive it is just so great,
I know , I sound flaky, but as of late following this news story and
seeing all those dead babies in Palestine, so many dead,
heartbreaking....
January 7, 2009 2:37 PM
yayacanada said...
Penny, you don't sound flaky at all. Most of us have had our moments
of tears, but then we get on with doing what we can to get the message
out, just as you have.
January 7, 2009 2:57 PM
Zahra Billoo said...
amidst reports of death and destruction, this story made my morning.
fight on ladies, fight on!
http://yayacanada.blogspot.com/2009/01/jewish-women-occupy-israeli-consulate.html
Peace Power
HHW
> On Jan 7, 8:56 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
>
> > > > > > See Palestinian loss of land 1946 - 1999http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
>
> > > > >http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/com...
>
> > > > > > I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> > > > > > Jews in 1946.
>
> > > > > Who cares what you think?
>
> > > > A little frustrated are you David?
>
> > > Only with this weirdo that calls itself _god_.... The rest of you
> > > louses don't bother me. Why should trashy people bother me?
>
> > I must bother you. You haved clipped the following:
>
> Again... you are trash... Why should trash bother me? I get annoyed
> when
> someone like _god_ shows up and posts dozens upone dozens of off topic
> crime
> stories... You on the other hand are just a plain anti-semitic low-
> life. Why should
> you bother me? You are a joke.
Okay, here's an ON-TOPIC crime story:
Could Israel Be Charged With War Crimes?
By Mel Frykberg, IPS News. Posted January 7, 2009.
The repeated bombing of clearly marked civilian buildings is a
flagrant violation of international law.
RAMALLAH, Jan 7 (IPS) -- Israel has committed war crimes and should be
prosecuted in an international court, says Raji Sourani, head of the
Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) in Gaza.
"The repeated bombing of clearly marked civilian buildings, where
civilians were sheltering, crosses several red lines in regard to
international law," Sourani told IPS.
Palestinian Authority (PA) delegate to Britain Professor Manuel
Hassassian has said the PA will launch legal proceedings against
Israeli leaders it says are responsible for war crimes in Gaza,
according to a Palestinian news report.
Another 22 Palestinians were killed Wednesday morning in bombing and
shelling as Israel's Operation Cast Lead entered day 11. The dead
included four people killed in the shelling of a children's playground
near a mosque in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood of Gaza city.
Six Israelis were treated for shock as several rockets from Gaza hit
Israel.
Hassassian's comment came in the wake of Israeli shelling of a UN
school in Jabaliya refugee camp Tuesday afternoon which killed over 40
Palestinians. Several other UN schools in the Gaza Strip were also hit
in the last few days, resulting in a number of casualties.
The UN called for an investigation, stating that prior to the current
operation the Israelis were given the precise coordinates of all UN
institutions in Gaza.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has already
condemned an Israeli attack on two members of the Palestinian Red
Crescent (PRC) last week. The ICRC said the medics were wearing
fluorescent jackets, their ambulances were clearly marked, and their
flashing lights were on.
Nihal Al-Akras, chairman of the Palestinian Health Care Committees,
asked the international community to pressure Israel to stop firing on
medical facilities and workers in the Gaza Strip.
Akhras's comments followed Tuesday's bombing of the Ad-Dura hospital
in the Rimal neighbourhood of Gaza city. Three mobile clinics provided
by a Danish NGO, DanChurchAid, were also destroyed.
"We've been able to help the wounded and suffering so far because our
vehicles have been present and ready inside Gaza. This possibility of
emergency aid is now in ruins," said Henrik Stubkjær, secretary
general of DanChurchAid.
"We are deeply shocked that the Israeli air strikes directly prevent
the humanitarian aid effort," he added.
According to DanChurchAid the clinics were clearly marked with red
crosses and were parked in the Union of Healthcare headquarters.
"One Palestinian doctor and three medics have been killed during
Israel's bombing campaign which began on December 27," Sammy Hassan,
spokesman for Gaza's Shifa Hospital told IPS.
While Israel has denied that it deliberately targets civilians,
reading between the lines of reports in the Israeli media and
admissions by military leaders would suggest that the lives of
Palestinian civilians are secondary to saving Israeli soldiers.
Several senior Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) officers have admitted
that the IDF strategy is to use tremendous firepower on the ground to
protect Israeli soldiers during fighting in civilian areas, a senior
officer explained to journalists on Tuesday.
"For us, being cautious means being aggressive," said one officer.
"From the minute we entered, we've acted like we're at war. That
creates enormous damage on the ground.
"When we suspect that a Palestinian fighter is hiding in a house, we
shoot it with a missile and then with two tank shells, and then a
bulldozer hits the wall. It causes damage but it prevents the loss of
life among soldiers."
The IDF suffered significant military casualties during the 2006
Lebanon war, and the top brass realized that a repeat of this would
erode public morale and the country's political will. The Israeli
cabinet took all this into account prior to the ground operation into
Gaza.
Additionally, limited global reaction -- due to the lack of
international media on the ground in Gaza following an Israeli ban --
to several of the more serious incidents of civilian casualties has
emboldened Israel to a certain degree.
Even during the Lebanon War following similarly serious attacks by
Israel on Lebanese civilians, a ceasefire took weeks to be enforced.
However, Israel has not been completely immune from the world's
outrage. Following international pressure on the escalating
humanitarian crisis, Israel has agreed to establish a humanitarian
corridor near Gaza city.
Israeli military operations will be halted for three hours every day
to allow humanitarian aid to reach Gaza's besieged population through
this corridor.
"The idea is for the Israeli military to lay down its weapons every
day from 1 pm to 4 pm starting today (Wednesday) in the area of the
city of Gaza," an Israeli source was quoted as saying.
Israeli leaders met in Tel Aviv Wednesday morning to discuss expanding
the ground offensive during a period when most of the aims of the
operation have been reached, according to a number of Israeli
analysts.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni,
Defense Minister Ehud Olmert -- the war cabinet's troika — reportedly
discussed an even more intensive campaign in Gaza's towns and cities.
Israel is hoping to inflict as much damage as possible to Hamas's
personnel and infrastructure.
drahcir
> On Jan 7, 4:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > HHW, the drunk, the proven liar, the obvious coward hopes that the
> > issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
> > hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
>
> *So* you!
> Can't respond with intelligent answers so it's hasabra time!
Hasabra - hmm -- is that an organization for male -> female
transsexuals?
This is between HHW and myself, mirelle. He has accused me of
plagiarism. Can you imagine anything so silly? Anyway, he is a coward
who now lacks the balls to admit he erred, in all likelihood due to a
drunken rage. He thinks that he can simply toss around any bullshit he
wants without any support. Regarding his posts, please get a grip, you
want me to give the idiot an "intelligent answer" to his pride in
"bothering" DoD?
> http://yayacanada.blogspot.com/2009/01/jewish-women-occupy-israeli-co...
HHW
> On Jan 7, 9:59 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 6:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > HHW, the drunk, the proven liar, the obvious coward hopes that the
> > > issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
> > > hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
>
>
> The "foul redundancies" HHW is referring to is my repeated request for
> him to retract the lies he has been spewing. He thinks "clipping" them
> will make them go away. HHW is not only a lowly liar, he is a coward
> who will try to "wait it out" rather than step forward and admit his
> lies. I can wait as long as you can, H.
Holding your breath we hope. But you are a plagiarist, Ratner. I've
proved it. One only needs to do that once. You are a lot of other foul
things too but I won't waste time on that now.
Clip redundancies.
Is this an example of the "goading" you think you're utilizing against
me, Ratner? How does one respond to goading? How about with this, an
Amy Goodman interview?
Israel Bombs UN School, Three Killed; Death Toll 100 on Monday Alone
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted January 6, 2009.
A "large number" of Monday's casualties were civilians, and twelve of
them were children.
For more background and news on the gaza invasion, read Liliana
Segura's Atrocities in Gaza: Piecing Together the Story
Amy Goodman: The Palestinian death toll continues to mount on the
eleventh day of Israel's attack on Gaza. The Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz reports 100 Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks
Monday, "a large number" of them civilians. At least twelve of the
dead were children. At least two whole families were wiped out, one
family of seven inside the Shati refugee camp and another family of
eleven in the neighborhood of Zeitoun. Earlier today, at least ten
Palestinian civilians were killed when an Israeli naval boat shelled
their home on the Gaza shore. Witnesses say Israeli tanks have now
entered a second major Palestinian city, Khan Yunis, in addition to
Gaza City in the north.
Meanwhile, five Israeli soldiers were also killed Monday. The Israeli
military says four of them died in two separate incidents when Israeli
tank shells errantly hit the areas where they were operating. The
mistaken killing of its own soldiers could serve to further bolster
criticism of Israel's claim to be attacking Gaza with precise strikes
on military targets.
Overall, an estimated 562 Palestinians have been killed with more than
2,500 wounded.
The Bush administration, meanwhile, continues to support Israel's
attack. On Monday, the veteran correspondent Helen Thomas questioned
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.
Helen Thomas: Why is the President letting more people be killed in
this situation, instead of going for a ceasefire and calling for
restraint, as they have in the past, on both sides?
Dana Perino: We are calling for a durable ceasefire. That's what we
are trying to establish.
Helen Thomas: But why don't you call it today and stop people from
being killed?
Dana Perino: Well, I think, Helen, strong views are held on this by
all sides. We believe that Israel has a right to defend itself, and--
Helen Thomas: Do the Gazans have a right to defend themselves?
Dana Perino: I think that what the Gazans deserve is a chance to live
in peace and security. What President Bush has worked for is a chance
to establish a two-state solution, so that the Palestinians could have
their own state, so that they could live in their own democracy. And
that's what President Abbas, who is the President of all Palestinians,
has been working towards.
Helen Thomas: The President did not recognize their election, which
was fair and square under international law, as observers --
Dana Perino: Look, when -- the President did call for the -- did
support the elections. And when the elections were held, I don't think
that Hamas was elected because they said, "Vote for us, we'll take you
to war" or "We'll hold you hostage" or "We'll send rockets into Israel
every day." But they won because they were tired -- the people of --
the Palestinians, people of Gaza, were frustrated with the services
that they were getting from the Fatah party, which was a wake-up call
for the Fatah party as well. And they have worked to try to improve
what they could provide governance-wise for all of the Palestinians.
Helen Thomas: So knowing that, why did the US cut off all relation --
all aid to the people?
Dana Perino: We certainly have not done that to the people of Gaza. We
do not deal with the terrorist organizations, of which Hamas is
designated as one.
AG: The UN says around a quarter of the dead are civilians, but that
figure only counts women and children, excluding adult males. Today,
we'll look at one of those men. I'm joined by Fares Akram. He's the
Gaza correspondent for The Independent of London. His father was
killed in an Israeli F-16 attack on Saturday. His wife is nine months
pregnant.
Fares Akram, welcome to Democracy Now!, and our condolences on the
death of your father.
Fares Akram: Welcome, and thank you for your sympathy and support.
AG: Can you talk about what happened to your dad?
FA: I'm talking to you now, and I think you may hear the sound of the
shooting going on from the Israeli tanks, which are only two
kilometers away from our house.
My father was killed on Saturday when he was in our farmland in the
northwest of Gaza Strip, very close to the border with Israel. We were
very shocked with his death, especially that we have never expected he
would be killed by Israelis, because he's very close to the border,
and that area is under control of Israeli cameras and the watching
towers, and there are only a few houses scattered there amid the very
large open spaces up for eight kilometers to the south until we get to
Gaza. All that land, that area, are open, and there are no militant
activities. We often thought that my father would be hurt from the
rockets that are fired from Gaza, because, as I said, the farm is very
close to the Israeli border. But we have never expected that he would
be killed by the Israelis, who were watching him from nearby.
AG: Can you explain who your father was, Fares?
FA: My father was a judge within the -- working within the Palestinian
Authority under -- led by President Mahmoud Abbas. After Hamas seized
Gaza last year, he had to quit his job, because Hamas has taken over
the judiciary system of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. And he
moved to the farm, where he set up a large farm to produce dairy
products. We have hundreds of cows there.
We asked my father to stay here with us and not to go to the farm.
That was at the beginning of the aerial onslaught on December 27. But
he said he will go there to look after the cows, because, you know, if
the Israelis have a--launch a ground operation, the roads will be cut,
and no one will be looking after the cows. So he went there on
December 27 and remained there. I want--
AG: Fares Akram, I'm going to ask you to pause for one minute --
FA: OK.
AG: -- as you recount what happened to your father, because we've just
been joined by Christopher Gunness, who's a spokesperson for UNRWA,
the UN Relief and Works Agency. He's on the line with us from Gaza.
And we've just heard that a school in Gaza has been hit, as well as a
health clinic, and we want to get the latest. And then we're going to
come back to you.
Christopher Gunness, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you explain
what has happened?
CG: Thank you very much. It's more bad news, I'm afraid. Last night at
11:30, at the Asma Elementary School in Gaza City, there was an air
strike in which the school compound suffered a direct hit. I'm not
suggesting that it was definitely targeted. Three people who had taken
refuge in the school had actually asked permission from the supervisor
there to go out and use the toilet facilities, which were at a
building in the school compound. As they were returning back to the
school, there was an attack, and an explosive of some sort landed in
the school compound, and they were killed.
We are strongly protesting these killings with the Israeli
authorities, and we're calling for an immediate and impartial
investigation. It's important to say that the coordinates of all of
our facilities in Gaza were handed over to the Israelis well before
this offensive began. The schools were clearly marked. So it should
have been known exactly where they were. The fact is that our
compounds and our facilities are being used to shelter people. There
were over 400 people in the Asma school who had left their homes,
fleeing the fighting from the northern areas of Gaza. We say that
there has to be an investigation, because the facts don't come out and
speak for themselves. If there have been violations of international
humanitarian law, then they have to be--people have to be held
accountable.
We're also just confirming that there was an attack at 11:00 this
morning. It appears that it's a mosque in the Burej camp that may have
been targeted, but an UNRWA health center that was nearby was very
badly damaged. Six of our staff were wounded, and three of those are
in a serious condition. And those are really all the facts that I can
confirm for you now.
AG: Is it true that the people who went into the school for
protection, some of them were responding to the pamphlets dropped by
the Israeli military telling them to leave their homes?
CG: It's very likely that that is the case. But let's be clear here.
When you get a leaflet saying "Leave your house. It's about to be
attacked. Go to safety," there is no safety in Gaza. Your listeners
must realize that there is a large fence around Gaza. In conflicts,
people grab their children and flee to safety. There's no safety in
Gaza today. There is nowhere for these people to flee, which is why we
echo the words of the Secretary-General: "Stop the fighting."
It just has to stop, because scores of innocent people are now being
caught up in this. Humanitarian supplies are not getting to the places
where they're needed. Ambulances aren't getting access to the sick,
the dying, the injured, and they're not getting access to hospitals.
We're not able to get medical supplies to the hospitals because of
this offensive. We have had to cancel today--I hope that might change,
but so far we've had to cancel the delivery of our trucks, because of
the security situation is just too bad.
AG: We've reported over 500 Palestinians have been killed. And we're
talking with Fares Akram, who is the Gazan reporter for The
Independent of London. And my question to you is -- we're talking
about his father, who was killed on his farm in the first day of the
attack. The UN says the number of Palestinians who have been killed,
something like 20 percent of them, at least, are civilians. But is it
true that that is only counting women and children?
CG: Well, it's extremely confused, and we're being very careful in
UNRWA about this figure. What John Holmes, the head of OCHA, the
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in New York, said
last night was that at least 25 percent of all these -- the fatalities
are civilians. And I'm afraid that's about as accurate as we can be,
given the sheer confusion on the ground.
AG: Well, I want to thank you, Christopher Gunness, for joining us,
spokesperson for the UN Relief and Works Agency, speaking to us from
Gaza, as we return now to Fares Akram.
Fares, you were describing what happened to your father, who was a
judge, who returned to his farm. This is on the first day of the
Israeli attack on Gaza.
FA: Mm-hmm. After that, we kept in contact with my father, who was
saying that it's very safe there and it has been very quiet and no
fighting at all there. But suddenly, on Saturday, three days ago, as
Israel was about to start the ground invasion into Gaza Strip, an F-16
warplane suddenly dropped a bomb at our two-story house there, turning
it to little more than boulders, destroying it completely.
We got the news after one hour, because the mobile networks were down
in Gaza due the overload and because the Israelis hit some of the
signal transmission antennas.
We tried to go there, but, of course, the road was cut. But my brother
and my uncle took the risk, and they drove there, drove a jeep, sped
by a jeep there. And they said the Israeli gunboats were firing at the
jeep all of the way, but because the jeep was driving very speedy on a
dodgy road, the missiles did not hit the jeep.
When they arrived there, they found the dead body of my father as a
pile of flesh, in addition to another teenager from our extended
family. Though he was walking with my father into the villa, we found
the second teenager thrown 300 meters away from my father's body. At
that time, when some other people from my family arrived to help
evacuate the facility, another Israeli air strike took place, but this
time by Apache helicopters targeting one of our cottages there, and a
cousin of me was seriously injured when they were there. And the
Israeli gunboats also kept firing on them on their way back to Gaza.
AG: When did you hold the funeral?
FA: We held a very quick funeral next day, on Sunday morning. The
convoys of the cars in the funeral were very small and short, because
the shelling was ongoing and the Israeli airplanes were flying
overhead and were striking everywhere.
I would like to mention that thousands of air strikes have took place
in Gaza, and they are still ongoing. But here, we have to mention that
Gaza is only 360 square kilometers. When you drop this amount of bombs
into this small area, it means there is no safe place in Gaza at all,
and it means everything is targeted, as you may be hearing that
families there were killed. Complete families made up of the parents
and their kids were completely eliminated.
AG: I thought it was very interesting in reading your piece about your
dad, reporter's father first casualty of Israel's ground offensive,
that you said he was born in Gaza, educated in Egypt, a lawyer and
judge who worked for the Palestinian Authority. "After Hamas took
over, he quit and turned to agriculture. Dad's father, Fares" -- who
you're named for, I suppose -- "who had been driven out of his home in
what is now Israeli Ashkelon in 1948, had bought the land in the
1960s"?
FA: Yeah, that's right.
AG: And Jewish settlers had taken it over during the Second Intifada?
FA: Yeah, during the Second Intifada, which started in 2000, until the
Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Israeli army had sealed off
all the roads leading to our farm, because at that time it was located
among three Israeli settlements. But they allowed us to go to our farm
only two times a week, and we have had to pass through Israeli
checkpoints. And the Israeli army had given us special ID cards and
permissions to enter the area. The ID cards were written in Hebrew,
and they bore our photos. It means that the Israelis know all of us
and know who are the people who live there. During the eight years of
violence, the area in which our farm is located has been the most
quiet in all over Gaza Strip.
AG: You write, Fares, that your father "hated what Hamas was doing to
Gaza's legal system, introducing Islamist justice." He completely
opposed violence, would have worked "for a just settlement with Israel
and a better future for Palestinians. When the PA gained control over
the West Bank, he moved to Ramallah to help establish the courts
there." Your feelings, as we wrap up right now? You write, "My grief
carries no desire for revenge, which I know to be always in vain. But,
in truth, as a grieving son, I am finding it hard to distinguish
between what the Israelis call terrorists and the Israeli pilots and
tank crews who are invading Gaza." You ask a question about the
difference between the pilot who blew your father to pieces and the
militant who fires a small rocket.
FA: Yeah, I don't see any difference between them, and there is no
difference between the pilots who drop a 1,000-kilogram bomb in a
mosque in Jabalya -- Jabalya is a refugee camp. It's the most densely
populated area not only in Gaza Strip, but maybe in all over the
world. Jabalya is the most densely populated area. And when you drop a
bomb in a mosque surrounded by very fragile houses, it means that of
course their victims will be the residents who live in these houses.
So I don't know how the pilots don't hesitate to carry out the air
strikes in civilian areas.
AG: Fares Akram, your wife is about to give birth?
FA: Yes. And this is another problem, another dilemma for me. Today, I
have evacuated -- I had to evacuate my wife to her family's house,
because it's closer to the clinic where she's supposed to deliver
birth. It's closer to the clinic than our house. In order to -- you
know, I can't describe my feeling when I have to leave my wife alone
in this situation and send her to her family house.
And she's also worried about me, because the tanks are getting more
close to our house. And we know what the Israelis will do if they get
near our house. They will call on us on a megaphone to come out of the
house. And after that, most probably they will hit the house. They
have set fire now to ten houses in the north of Gaza Strip, where,
when I look from the window, I see [inaudible] of black smoke rising
from the houses. I can't imagine what will happen to our house.
AG: Why don't you leave it?
FA: I'm very sad for having to leave my wife in these circumstances,
but if she goes into labor while she is in our house here, and
especially if it was dark, I know it will be very impossible to go to
the hospital, even if we call the ambulance. The ambulance can't come
in the night.
And also in the day it's very dangerous, because when there is an
incursion, when there are Israeli tanks nearby, the airplanes would be
clearing the way for the tanks to advance in. And you know how the
airplanes clear the way for the tanks: they fire on every moving
object. They hit houses. They use the F-16s to help open spaces among
the houses, in order to force the residents to flee, and so the army
can go in.
And even if we fled our houses, we would go to the UNRWA schools. And
you heard the UNRWA spokesman, you heard what he said. He said that
they attacked also the schools where the people have taken refuge. So
the best thing, I think, is to stay in house and to pray that you
won't be harmed.
AG: Fares Akram, I want to thank you for being with us. Be safe. Gaza
correspondent for The Independent of London, he lost his father in the
Israeli F-16 attack on Saturday.
drahcir
DoD
> On Jan 7, 9:06 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:56 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Snip path
>
> > > > > > > Hamas fires rockets at land stolen from Palestinians.
>
> > > > > > > See Palestinian loss of land 1946 - 1999http://www.zionismexplained.org/map/landmap1.jpg
>
> > > > > >http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/com...
>
> > > > > > > I think Israelis should therefore go to the areas that were owned by
> > > > > > > Jews in 1946.
>
> > > > > > Who cares what you think?
>
> > > > > A little frustrated are you David?
>
> > > > Only with this weirdo that calls itself _god_.... The rest of you
> > > > louses don't bother me. Why should trashy people bother me?
>
> > > I must bother you. You haved clipped the following:
>
> > Again... you are trash... Why should trash bother me? I get annoyed
> > when
> > someone like _god_ shows up and posts dozens upone dozens of off topic
> > crime
> > stories... You on the other hand are just a plain anti-semitic low-
> > life. Why should
> > you bother me? You are a joke.
>
> Okay, here's an ON-TOPIC crime story:
>
> Could Israel Be Charged With War Crimes?
No.
Cisco2665
DoD is a ZioNazi, and a propagandist. Believe in him,
and you are doomed. He will lead you over a cliff, and then
watch (while laughing) as you jump in!
--
Stupid actions, most often end with stupid results.
- www.cisco.co.nr
HHW
> issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
> hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
Maybe if I gave you an answer designed for DoD? You're not actually
very distinguishable.
> > > Who cares what you think?
>
> > A little frustrated are you David?
>
> Only with this weirdo that calls itself _god_.... The rest of you
> louses don't bother me. Why should trashy people bother me?
Your confusion is worsening. What's the Zionist benefit from
inveighing against a "weirdo" who calls itself _god_...? You really
are wasting your time when you fail to make cogent pro-Zionist
arguments. I realize it is difficult because you are on the morally
and historically bankrupt side of the issue and because you're neither
a university man nor self-educated, but nevertheless you MUST attempt
to justify mass murder, the Nakba, the forty year occupation and the
theft of Palestinian land. It's not consistent to have made the
commitment ("I am the Department of Defense for the world's Jews!")
and then to fail abjectly to follow through, to display such
demoralization that you can't even bring yourself to address the
issues.
DoD
> On Jan 7, 6:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > HHW, the drunk, the proven liar, the obvious coward hopes that the
> > issue of his false accusations will just fade away if he runs away and
> > hides for long enough. Ain't happenin', H.
>
> Maybe if I gave you an answer designed for DoD? You're not actually
> very distinguishable.
>
> > > > Who cares what you think?
>
> > > A little frustrated are you David?
>
> > Only with this weirdo that calls itself _god_.... The rest of you
> > louses don't bother me. Why should trashy people bother me?
>
> Your confusion is worsening.
No... I got it correct. You are trash.
Docky Wocky
"The group is carrying out this occupation in solidarity with the 1.5
million people of Gaza and to ensure that Jewish voices against the
massacre in Gaza are being heard. They are demanding that Israel end
its military assault and lift the 18-month siege on the Gaza Strip to
allow humanitarian aid into the territory..."
_____________________________
There is nothing worse than a diverse group of self-hating Joos manning the
barricades for the f-ing highly educated barbarian Palestinians and their
savage Hamas overlords.
If there was any true justice in the world, the Canucks would grow some
balls, pack all of them into a nice shipping container and air freighted it
back to the Izzy border area so they could all be trucked into Gaza by their
sympathetic moslem brethren, and where they could all hold hands and sing
kumbayah around the camel dung fires while they awaited another shipment of
free UN food and fuel.
Of course, some of the thicker headed, barbarian-loving, islamic sycophants
will accuse me of being biassed in favor of the Izzies, but who cares?
DoD
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote in message
news:QXr9l.4343$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
LOL! Right on!
Cisco2665
> "Docky Wocky" <mrch...@lst.net> wrote in message
Better watch it, this bloke is kissing ass.
DoD is a ZioNazi, and a propagandist. Believe in him,
and you are doomed. He will lead you over a cliff, and then
watch (while laughing) as you jump in!
Speaking of ZioNazi's drahcir is one too! Hehh go figure..
HHW
You're right. Only individual Israelis may be charged with war crimes.
They're the ones who in the future will only be able to go as tourists
to Paraguay and then only with advance payments to the Junta.
DoD
Of course. You are simple trash.
HHW
Only trash would question Israeli policy?
DoD
In the lying, decietful manner that you do, yes. You with your
phoney intellectualism is nothing more than garbage.
drahcir
<snip>
>
> Holding your breath we hope. But you are a plagiarist, Ratner. I've
> proved it. One only needs to do that once.
You are a simple, baldfaced liar H. Of course you and everyone else
knows that. I simply cannot understand why you feel compelled to lie
to complete strangers, but I suppose it's a question of character.
It's true that one only needs to do that once. But you haven't done it
once. If I am wrong about that, all you have to do is post a link to
your supposed proof. But of course that won't happen because there
never was a proof, since of course this plagiarism you insist on never
happened. So go ahead, put all of this to bed, H - with a simple link
this affair can be put to bed. The ball is in your court.
HHW
You know when and where I proved you a plagiarist. You're simply
playing games. If you want to defend yourself go ahead. All it will
take is a simple link plus a credible argument.
drahcir
> On Jan 8, 4:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:04 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Holding your breath we hope. But you are a plagiarist, Ratner. I've
> > > proved it. One only needs to do that once.
>
> > You are a simple, baldfaced liar H. Of course you and everyone else
> > knows that. I simply cannot understand why you feel compelled to lie
> > to complete strangers, but I suppose it's a question of character.
> > It's true that one only needs to do that once. But you haven't done it
> > once. If I am wrong about that, all you have to do is post a link to
> > your supposed proof. But of course that won't happen because there
> > never was a proof, since of course this plagiarism you insist on never
> > happened. So go ahead, put all of this to bed, H - with a simple link
> > this affair can be put to bed. The ball is in your court.
>
> You know when and where I proved you a plagiarist.
Liar. If you had done it, you would have posted a link to it. Since
the proof doesn't exist, you can't very well provide a link to it, can
you?
You're simply
> playing games.
No game. But maybe for a child like you, it's a good analogy. Here,
I'll make it as simple as I can. Link = you win. No link = you lose.
Get it now?
If you want to defend yourself go ahead. All it will
> take is a simple link plus a credible argument.
LOL! HHWbabble to try to escape. YET MORE PROOF YOU ARE A LIAR.
It is the same story with you every, single time. You fuck up, either
by lying or just doing one of your patented alzheimers acts, then
rather than admit you fucked up, you try to lie your way out. But you
can't do it, H. I am way too smart for you. So just remember:
LINK = YOU WIN
NO LINK = YOU LOSE
HHW
> On Jan 9, 1:11 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 4:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 11:04 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > -
> > > > Holding your breath we hope. But you are a plagiarist, Ratner. I've
> > > > proved it. One only needs to do that once.
>
> > > You are a simple, baldfaced liar H. Of course you and everyone else
> > > knows that. I simply cannot understand why you feel compelled to lie
> > > to complete strangers, but I suppose it's a question of character.
> > > It's true that one only needs to do that once. But you haven't done it
> > > once. If I am wrong about that, all you have to do is post a link to
> > > your supposed proof. But of course that won't happen because there
> > > never was a proof, since of course this plagiarism you insist on never
> > > happened. So go ahead, put all of this to bed, H - with a simple link
> > > this affair can be put to bed. The ball is in your court.
>
> > You know when and where I proved you a plagiarist.
>
> Liar. If you had done it, you would have posted a link to it.
I posted the proof that you are a plagiarist. You know insist that I
do it again. Remember I don't run errands for you. I'm not going to
posts it again.
Since
> the proof doesn't exist, you can't very well provide a link to it, can
> you?
You lie. How did you first come to know from me that you had been
caught plagiarizing another's work? I even pasted you sin into one of
my posts so as to rub your pretty little nose in it.
HHW
> On Jan 9, 7:19 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is reposted to correct typos.
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:11 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 4:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 11:04 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > -
> > > > > Holding your breath we hope. But you are a plagiarist, Ratner. I've
> > > > > proved it. One only needs to do that once.
>
> > > > You are a simple, baldfaced liar H. Of course you and everyone else
> > > > knows that. I simply cannot understand why you feel compelled to lie
> > > > to complete strangers, but I suppose it's a question of character.
> > > > It's true that one only needs to do that once. But you haven't done it
> > > > once. If I am wrong about that, all you have to do is post a link to
> > > > your supposed proof. But of course that won't happen because there
> > > > never was a proof, since of course this plagiarism you insist on never
> > > > happened. So go ahead, put all of this to bed, H - with a simple link
> > > > this affair can be put to bed. The ball is in your court.
>
> > > You know when and where I proved you a plagiarist.
>
> > Liar. If you had done it, you would have posted a link to it.
>
> I posted the proof that you are a plagiarist. You now insist that I
> do it again. Remember I don't run errands for you. I'm not going to
> post it again.
>
> Since
>
> > the proof doesn't exist, you can't very well provide a link to it, can
> > you?
>
> You lie. How did you first come to know from me that you had been
> caught plagiarizing another's work? I even pasted your sin into one of
drahcir
> On Jan 9, 7:19 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:11 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 4:29 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 11:04 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > -
> > > > > Holding your breath we hope. But you are a plagiarist, Ratner. I've
> > > > > proved it. One only needs to do that once.
>
> > > > You are a simple, baldfaced liar H. Of course you and everyone else
> > > > knows that. I simply cannot understand why you feel compelled to lie
> > > > to complete strangers, but I suppose it's a question of character.
> > > > It's true that one only needs to do that once. But you haven't done it
> > > > once. If I am wrong about that, all you have to do is post a link to
> > > > your supposed proof. But of course that won't happen because there
> > > > never was a proof, since of course this plagiarism you insist on never
> > > > happened. So go ahead, put all of this to bed, H - with a simple link
> > > > this affair can be put to bed. The ball is in your court.
>
> > > You know when and where I proved you a plagiarist.
>
> > Liar. If you had done it, you would have posted a link to it.
>
> I posted the proof that you are a plagiarist.
Liar. If you had done it, you would have posted a link to it.
You know insist that I
> do it again.
Relax, H. I insist on nothing of the kind. Learn to read. I claim you
are lying, that you proved nothing, you simply accused without any
substantiation whatever. You don't need to prove it again. All you
have to do is supply a link to your, ahem, proof. YOU WON'T BECAUSE
YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF. THERE CAN'T BE, AS THE
"PLAGIARISM" NEVER EXISTED.
Remember I don't run errands for you. I'm not going to
> posts it again.
You know full well that no one's asking you to post again. You need
to support your contention with a link.
All you have to do is go back to the place where you say you proved
your accusation, get the URL, and post a link. Simple:
LINK = YOU WIN
NO LINK = YOU LOSE
Your choice.
> Since
>
> > the proof doesn't exist, you can't very well provide a link to it, can
> > you?
>
> You lie. How did you first come to know from me that you had been
> caught plagiarizing another's work?
You made a groundless, lying accusation. I have linked to it probably
30 times by now. Here it is again:
I even pasted you sin into one of
> my posts so as to rub your pretty little nose in it.
You're just compounding your lie. H, listen, the fact is you have a
PROVEN history as a liar. My theory is that you started with your
plagiarism bullshit when you erred trying to follow the thread, since
the only occurrence of that which you say I plagiarized in a post of
mine was quoted in a reply to john, who originally posted it - not
only did I never use that cite, I don't even believe in it since the
author is not a geneticist. As I have already shown in a different
thread, you are incapable of following the ">'s" in a thread, and, in
typical alzheimic fashion, you got confused. Now you are ashamed to
admit it, and of course I won't let you get away with it, so you have
to try to lie your way out. If you want to disprove my theory, and
prove me a plagiarist, you need to post a link proving your accusation
of plagiarism, or else it's just one more HHW lie. Simple.
Cisco2665
OHHH, look, two ZioNazi's tag team against one individual.
Can you Guess who the ZioNazi's are? Joined at the hip
they are! You gotta be an idiot to believe a ZioNazi, with
their agenda to destroy Judaism, and pit Arab against Jew
just to do it too!
Hehh, they got a lot of people fooled, but I ain't one of em.